Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 31st July, 1953, for the Summer Recess—met at Half-past Two o'Clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Dr. Santo Wayburn Jeger, Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

WRIT ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, a warrant for a new Writ for Broxtowe, in the room of Frederic Seymour Cocks, Esquire. C.B.E., deceased.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Resale Prices (De-Control)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is yet able to make a statement on the resale of houses built under licence since the war.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now make a statement of the Government's proposals concerning the selling price of houses built under licence.

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement concerning the continuance or otherwise of the control over the selling prices of houses built under private licence since the war.

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what

conditions he proposes to impose on the resale of houses built under licence when the present Regulations lapse in December next.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The power to control the selling price of post-war houses is contained in Section 7 of the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945, Section 43 of the Housing Act, 1949, and Section 38 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1949. It will lapse automatically on 20th December next unless renewed, and the Government do not propose to ask Parliament to renew it. This control was introduced to prevent profiteering in these houses at a time when licences were difficult to obtain and pre-war houses commanded scarcity prices. Now that freedom to build under licence has been greatly extended and the price of pre-war houses is declining, we do not think that this control, which imposes a real hardship on many owner-occupiers, can any longer be justified.

Mr. Dalton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will be a keenly controversial matter on which no doubt debate may take place in this House, and that to many of us it appears to be a blatant encouragement to profiteering?

Mr. Macmillan: I think that if the right hon. Gentleman had watched the prices which are actually commanded in the market he would have seen that the success of the housing policy of the Government has had the effect of reducing prices.

Sir R. Acland: Does the Minister recall that in the pre-war years there were evils associated with the question of building for profit which were condemned as such and recognised not only by the Members of the Labour Party? Will he keep a careful watch to see that they do not occur again?

Mr. Macmillan: I shall keep a watch on every relevant matter.

Brigadier Medlicott: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this provision has served its purpose very well but that the decision of the Government not to renew it is very timely and marks a valuable step forward in the Government's general plans to see that all sections of the community are properly housed?

Mrs. White: Is the Minister aware that while the prices of larger houses in many areas have fallen the prices of smaller houses are still very high indeed, and that in areas where there are very few houses obtainable to rent the provisions which the Minister proposes to revoke have been a real safeguard and are still needed?

Mr. Macmillan: I think that the governing words are "have been."

Rent Restrictions Acts

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now make a statement of the Government's intentions regarding the introduction of legislation to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now make a statement concerning the review of the Rent Restrictions Acts in view of details recently given to him on this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has now decided to introduce legislation to amend the Rent Acts.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I hope to make a statement in due course.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that answer mean that the Minister has made up his mind to stop dodging this issue?

Mr. Macmillan: I can say one thing with certainty: I do not propose to introduce legislation this Session.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the Minister consider taking steps to prevent an increase in the rents of council houses, especially in the Chatham area?

Brigadier Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be awaited perhaps with apprehension on the other side of the House but with complete confidence on this side?

Mining Subsidence Areas

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in considering the imposition of limits on the housebuilding programmes of local authorities, he will take special account

of the needs of areas affected by mining subsidence and give priority to these areas.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. I try to take account of all relevant factors. Meanwhile, progress has been very substantial in the last two years.

Mr. Swingler: May I take it from that answer that the Minister will now approve the contracts in Newcastle-under-Lyme which he recently rejected on the ground of the arbitrary limit put on the number of houses under construction?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that the story of Newcastle-under-Lyme is too bad. In 1951, 235 houses were completed; in 1952, 307; in 1953 so far 372, and I feel confident that it will reach about 530. That will leave 620 uncompleted, so that next year the completions must be at least 600 and I trust that they may be even more.

Mr. Swingler: Although I recognise that the Labour-controlled council in Newcastle-under-Lyme have done very well, why should the Minister impose a limitation upon them when there is labour and materials available to enable them to do even better?

Mr. Macmillan: The figures are the answer.

Hon. Members: No.

Derelict Land (Reclamation)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to reclaim derelict land for housing and other purposes.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The reclamation of derelict land is a problem which local authorities have well in mind. As councils are aware I am always ready to consider reclamation proposals as far as my approval may be necessary and to give all the help I can. I am glad to say that a good deal has been and is being done.

Cooking and Washing Facilities

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that houses on some new housing estates are not provided with cooking or clothes-washing facilities and that these have to be provided by the


tenant; and if he will arrange that these facilities shall be provided by councils in all their new houses.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Some local authorities prefer to give their tenants freedom of choice. Points for either gas or electricity are always installed. A tenant can then get whatever type of appliance he prefers. I do not think this is a matter on which I should dictate to local authorities.

Mr. Janner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many of these places there are not even cookers and that many tenants cannot bear the great expense in view of the high cost of living and the cost of materials?

Mr. Macmillan: All these are relevant questions, but I think it is better to leave to the local authority the duty of making its own decision.

Landlord and Tenant Act, 1949

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce an amendment to Section 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1949, in order to make it possible for those with long leases and where the rent is under the full rateable value to re-sell their houses.

Mr. H. Macmillan: This raises difficult problems. I can as yet make no definite statement as to what can or cannot be done towards their solution.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the Minister give any idea when he may be able to make a statement, because this is a most serious problem for all concerned?

Mr. Macmillan: I know it is, and I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter. I fear not this Session.

Waiting Lists

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the difficulties being experienced by many persons in need of alternative housing accommodation in getting on to their local council's housing lists due to the wide variance in the method of awarding points, etc.; and whether he will recommend some suitable national scheme of points allocation.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir. My Central Housing Advisory Committee in their "Selection of Tenants" Report considered the adoption of a uniform method of selection by all housing authorities to be impracticable. I agree with them.

Mr. Lewis: Is not the Minister aware that there are many instances where some of the local authorities say that the applicant must have been residing in the area in 1939, some others say that they must have been resident in the area for a considerable time, while some others say they must have been resident for three years? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are thousands of people who cannot get on to any housing list at all, and should not something be done to help these people to get on to at least one housing list to enable them to get some accommodation?

Mr. Macmillan: I think the best way of grappling with this problem is to build more houses. With regard to the actual problem, we think that the best way to enforce a uniform system of housing is to allow the authority to settle it themselves. This matter was referred by my predecessor in 1949 to a very valuable body, the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which stated, in its well-argued and, I think, convincing Report, that it was against any attempt to enforce uniformity.

Mr. Lewis: If the Minister will not agree to advise the authorities concerned, will he not try to do something to see that these people can be accepted on at least one housing list? Is he not aware, from cases which I and other hon. Members have sent him, that there are literally hundreds of cases where families cannot get on to any housing list at all? Surely, something should be done to help this kind of case?

Mr. Macmillan: We are doing all we can, but I still say that progress in housing is the best way in which we can help.

Slum Clearance

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the difficulties confronting war-damaged towns and cities in rebuilding their war-damaged areas, while at the same time trying to clear their slum


areas; and whether he will make a statement of his intentions to assist local authorities confronted with this problem.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am aware of the difficulties, and am anxious to give any help that I can. I do not know, however, what special point the hon. Member has in mind. If he would let me know, I will certainly consider his suggestions.

Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Minister for that very sympathetic reply, may I ask him to consult with at least one local authority—the county borough of West Ham—and perhaps others, where, because of the financial losses resulting from the war, there are serious financial difficulties in building new houses, because these authorities cannot afford to get on with the job of slum clearance and at the same time build new houses? If the Minister will consult with some of these authorities, I myself, and I have no doubt other hon. Members, will be very glad to help.

Mr. Macmillan: I should be very ready to do so, and if the hon. Gentleman will bring them to see me, I shall be very happy to see them.

Hornchurch

Mr. Bing: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the fact that in the first six months of this year the Hornchurch Urban District Council have completed only 24 houses to let as compared with 286 built for sale, and that there are over 1,500 families on the Hornchurch waiting list, he will withdraw from the Horn-church Urban District Council the powers delegated by him to issue building licences.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir. The Urban District Council have been properly issuing licences in accordance with the present procedure. Their own progress has been held up by the fact that they cannot start on their principal new site till proper sewerage is available.

Mr. Bing: Is the Minister aware, firstly, that his Department has refused to find the funds necessary for the sewerage scheme, and, secondly, that the Conservative local council is saying that the Minister approves the proportion of 24 council houses to 268 built for private enterprise? Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he disapproves of that now?

Mr. Macmillan: The actual facts are that, since the war, 4,000 houses have been built in the Hornchurch district, of which about 2,000 were by private enterprise and 2,000 by the local authorities.

Mr. Bing: Is the Minister aware that these 2,000 houses were built under a Labour-controlled council, and that, since the Conservatives have taken over, there has been practically a cessation of private building, and will he not condemn it?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir; the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in his facts, not, I think, for the first time. The largest numbers of private enterprise houses built since the war were 423 in 1945–46 and 405 in 1946–47.

Mr. Bing: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will state at the nearest convenient date the number of houses under construction for the local authority and by private enterprise for sale, respectively, in the Hornchurch urban district.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I cannot add to the information published in the Housing Returns and summaries.

Mr. Bing: Is the Minister aware, first of all, that the Conservative Chairman of Hornchurch Council says that that information is wrong, and, secondly, that it shows that there are 98 houses under construction for letting and 508 for private enterprise? Does he not consider that that is absolutely disgusting?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be giving information rather than asking for it.

Mr. Bing: Will not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, when he is in office, it is necessary for every hon. Member to do that?

Mr. Macmillan: They ask the Questions, but they do not like the answers, and the answer is 300,000 houses a year.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Water Supplies (Description)

Mr. Hay: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will discourage the use, in circulars issued by his Department, of the words "potable"


and "non-potable" as a description of water supplies when presumably "drinkable" and "undrinkable" is meant.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I do not much like either word. I am advised that "potable" has become so well established a term among those responsible for water supplies that there is some risk of confusion if it were changed.

Mr. Hay: Does not my right hon. Friend think it highly desirable to get back to plain English? Since the circular in question will go out not only to those who normally understand a particular meaning but to others as well who might have some difficulty in understanding it, might not some change be made? Also, can my right hon. Friend say whether the word should be pronounced "po-table" or "pot-able"?

Mr. Macmillan: It is desirable to use plain English, but I assure my hon. Friend that it is very unusual.

Bomb Damage, Exeter (Reconstruction)

Mr. Dudley Williams: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the total amount of capital expenditure that will be permitted for the reconstruction of the bombed area of Exeter for 1954.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Final arrangements have not yet been made. But I hope that in 1954 the progress made in 1952 and 1953 will be continued.

Private Street Works, Hornchurch

Mr. Bing: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the number of unmade roads in Hornchurch, he is prepared to sanction an increased sum to be spent on making up of roads under the Private Street Works Acts in the Hornchurch urban district.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. I hope to be able to allow some increase next year.

Mr. Bing: Would the Minister at this time explain to the House why someone in Hornchurch can spend £100 freely on building his garage but is not permitted to spend £90 on building a road exactly opposite?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that for many years the

amount which could be spent on making up private roads was laid down by the Minister, including my predecessors, to each authority. I am happy to be able to say that in 1953 we were able to grant £15,000, against £2,000 in 1952, £8,000 in 1951, £6,000 in 1950, and I hope that 1954 will be better still

Derating

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what consideration he has given to the issues of economic policy involved in derating; and what action he has now decided to take.

Mr. H. Macmillan: These issues are continually under consideration, but I cannot add to previous statements on the subject.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As the Minister said nothing in previous statements on the subject, is he not aware that all the associations of local authorities and all responsible organisations of shopkeepers and traders are quite disgusted at his continued evasion of this issue?

Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would like to inform himself of the problems connected with it, I cannot do better than refer him to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) on the Second Reading of the Valuation for Rating Bill, when we had an interesting discussion on derating and when the party opposite ran away from the Amendment which they had put down.

Land Transactions (Circular)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether Circular 41/53, addressed to local authorities, applies to land transactions by new town corporations.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The Circular was not addressed to development corporations, but the basis of transactions in land between them and private persons is the same as that set out in the Circular.

Mr. Braine: Since this Circular provides for a much fairer method of acquiring land, could my right hon.


Friend make quite sure that the development corporations do avail themselves of this new concession?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes; I shall certainly do that, but I shall not actually direct them, because I think it is far better to advise them and leave the decision in their own hands. If my hon. Friend has any particular case and will consult with me, I will take it up at once.

Land, Selsdon (Purchase)

Mr. Doughty: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he will give approval for the purchase of land in Addington Road and Old Farleigh Road, Selsdon, for the purpose of building a community centre and library; and when he will give building permission to carry out this work.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The Council have not yet given me any details about these proposals. As soon as I know more about them, I shall certainly be ready to consider the question of timing.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR POLLUTION

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to give details of the emergency plans that will be put into operation to combat fogs similar to that experienced last December when many people died as the result of pollution of the air.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what immediate action he is taking, in view of the heavy loss of life resulting from fog and air pollution in the London area last December, to reduce the risk of a similar disaster this winter.

Mr. H. Macmillan: So far as I know the only practicable way of combating "smog" is to reduce smoke from chimneys. The problem is not one for which it is easy to devise emergency plans. I am of course awaiting the Report of the Beaver Committee. Meanwhile a special effort is needed by all those who burn coal to use it efficiently, and as sparingly as possible during fogs. This applies to householders no less than to industrial and other consumers.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the heavy death roll and as much is known already about air pollution, is not it remarkable that the Government have no plan ready should similiar conditions apply again this winter? Would not it be possible to give a warning if weather conditions were likely to be similar to those of last December and to request that domestic open fires and certain industrial processes should be dispensed with during the danger period?

Mr. Macmillan: I welcome that and any other suggestion that the hon. Gentleman might be willing to make to me. Perhaps the major point arises better on the next Question.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that his activity or inactivity in the matter is regarded with considerable misgiving when the lives of thousands of Londoners may be in serious jeopardy in the next few weeks?

Mr. Macmillan: I think that matter arises better on the next Question.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask the Minister whether he will start with the Carlton Club's chimney?

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on what date the Air Pollution Committee held its first meeting; how many meetings have since been held; and when it is expected that an interim or final report will be available for public information.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made by the Committee he established last July to inquire into causes of smoke pollution of the atmosphere; what evidence is to be taken from nationalised undertakings, including particularly the British Transport Commission, the National Coal Board and the British Electricity Authority as major contributors to atmospheric smoke pollution; when the report of the Committee will be available; and what form its publication will take.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The Committee was appointed on 21st July last and held its first meeting on 29th July. As one would expect from a Committee presided over by Sir Hugh Beaver, it has lost no time and, I understand, intends to present


an interim report shortly. It is for the Committee and not me to decide what evidence it will take.

Mr. Dodds: Will the Minister give some idea what he means by the word "shortly"? As the deaths took place in December, the Committee was not Bet up until July and there has been only one meeting since, is not it understood by the Minister why some people at least think that the matter has not been treated seriously enough?

Mr. Macmillan: By "shortly," I mean within a few weeks. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are experienced in the appointment of committees know that it takes some time to get exactly the people one needs. It is much more important to wait and get the right people on the Committee than to get the wrong people appointed in the first place.

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps have now been taken to abate the pollution of the air by waste gases from Thameside oil refineries following representations made to his Department by the Canvey Urban District Council and other authorities.

Mr. H. Macmillan: At the present stage of development it is difficult to eliminate altogether smell from these refineries, but my inspectors are collaborating with the companies to ensure that the most effective means of control are employed.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in South-East Essex we have the healthiest air in the country—it is one of the principal assets of the Thames-side holiday resorts—and that if this foul pollution is allowed to continue it will affect seriously not only the amenities of the area but the livelihood of thousands of people? Has my right hon. Friend any power to enforce action?

Mr. Macmillan: We have power under the Act. My inspectors are continually in touch with the companies. If my hon. Friend will consult with me I will see if there is any suggestion he can make which we can use.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Derequisitioned Properties

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Works how many office premises, houses or other buildings, he has caused to be derequisitioned during the first six months of this year as compared with the number released during the same period in 1951.

The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): During the first six months of 1953, 57 offices, 105 houses and 76 other buildings were derequisitioned by my Ministry. The comparable figures for the first six months of 1951 were 73 offices, 175 houses and 135 other buildings. In spite of the ban on new office building, derequisitioning has been maintained at a good rate, largely because of more economical use of Government accommodation.

Sir T. Moore: While it is obvious that my right hon. Friend is doing very well in this matter, may I ask him if he will bear in mind that there are still 80,000 buildings under requisition? Will he therefore press onwards even more ardently to release our buildings as well as our people?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. There were 11 million square feet under requisition when we came into office, and that figure has been reduced to 6 million. It becomes more difficult as we get down to the hard core, but we shall press on.

Primrose Hill (Closure)

Mr. Brooke: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the concern felt by many people in the neighbourhood about his intention to re-erect fencing around Primrose Hill and to close the hill after dusk; and whether he will make a statement as to his reasons.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Works (1) why he has decided to enclose Primrose Hill and to close it to the public at night; if he is aware of the resentment at his decision felt by those living in the neighbourhood; and if he will reconsider the matter;
(2) what is the precise nature of the damage done to Primrose Hill in recent weeks, of which he has complained.

Sir D. Eccles: Since the war considerable damage has been done at night in Primrose Hill by hooligans who cannot be caught unless the Hill is enclosed. Lamp-posts, chairs and other property have again and again been damaged. The latest act of vandalism was on 5th October when the admirable plaque recently presented by Mr. Arthur Kenyon was wrenched from its base. I propose therefore to close the Hill from 7.30 p.m. during the winter and at dusk in the summer. I shall do all I can not to inconvenience residents, but until the marauders are dealt with it is not worth trying to improve the amenities of the Hill.

Mr. Brooke: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his promise not to close the hill before 7.30 p.m., may I ask whether he is aware that a great many people in the locality are convinced that closing at night would not be necessary if the hill were more effectively patrolled?

Sir D. Eccles: The difficulty is that we cannot catch these people in the dark unless the hill is enclosed and it is therefore possible to question anybody who is there when he ought not to be.

Mr. Robinson: On account of a handful of hooligans, is the Minister really going to deprive the people of London of this amenity, which is extensively enjoyed by them after 7.30 p.m. whatever his information on the subject may be? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that increased patrolling would be a very simple way of dealing with this matter, and does he realise that protests have come not only from my constituents, but from people all over London? Will the right hon. Gentleman think again?

Sir D. Eccles: We have tried increased patrolling, and I am bound to say that I think the amenities enjoyed after dark are not comparable with those which we can provide during the day.

Mr. Robinson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Westminster Hall (Concerts)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Minister of Works what requests he has received for permission for further concerts to be

given at mid-day in Westminster Hall; and whether the next concert can be expected before Christmas.

Sir D. Eccles: I am considering one request to sing carols in Westminster Hall before Parliament rises for the Christmas Recess.

Sir R. Acland: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the decision regarding the holding of concerts in Westminster Hall rests exclusively with him or whether, in the event of him being in favour of the proposition, there are some other authorities connected with the building who might overrule him?

Sir D. Eccles: As the hon. Baronet knows, it is a very difficult question to answer as to where exactly the responsibility rests. I feel it my duty to consult other authorities connected with the Palace before coming to a decision, and that is what I am now doing.

Sir R. Acland: Will the Minister answer the Question? I am asking where the authority rests, and if there are difficulties we ought to know what they are.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISH (QUICK FREEZING)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will make a statement on the steps which have recently been taken to solve the problems relating to the quick-freezing and preservation of fish.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the replies given on 30th June and 14th July to the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton).

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister suggesting that he has done nothing since those replies were given, and does he realise that this method is one way of satisfying the urgent demand of the public for fish that can be supplied? Surely, he ought to do something about it?

Mr. Molson: If the hon. and learned Member will refer to the reply which I gave on 14th July, he will see that I


stated that experimental trials were being made at that time and that they were still going on.

Mr. Hughes: But three months have since passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Trade Disputes

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to avoid the repetition of so-called guerilla strikes in future especially in those industries which affect the export trade and the development of our defence programme.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The best method of avoiding disputes of any kind is the establishment by the parties of mutual confidence and cooperation which will enable differences to be resolved by amicable means. The services of my Department are available to the parties in all trade disputes and they will make every endeavour to bring about settlements by conciliatory means.

Sir T. Moore: Is there no way under the law of preventing these selective vendettas being carried out against individual employers and industries which have apparently incurred Communist hate?

Mr. Watkinson: I think I can best answer my hon. and gallant Friend by asking him to read the Report of the Court of Inquiry on a recent dispute. I would particularly refer him to paragraph 74 of that Report.

Mr. Robens: Is the Minister aware that he can feel assured of receiving the support of hon. Members on this side of the House against the tactics suggested by his hon. and gallant Friend?

Wage Inspectors

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Labour how many wage inspectors there are in Great Britain; and what is the annual cost of their salaries and expenses.

Mr. Watkinson: The number of wages inspectors employed by my Department is 186: the annual cost of their salaries and expenses is £180,000.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the Minister consider that the cost to the taxpayer justifies the continuance of these snoopers, and is it not time that this particular form of Gestapo ceased?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not accept my hon. Friend's remark about Gestapo. He probably does not realise that in 1952 these inspectors resulted in the collecting of arrears of remuneration amounting to no less than £166,000 paid by 12,000 establishments.

Sir H. Williams: Will my hon. Friend say why it is necessary to have these inspectors, having regard to the fact that trade unions in this country are quite efficient and quite capable of doing the job without them?

Mr. Watkinson: That is not our view in the Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Slaughterhouses (Siting)

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Committee he set up to investigate the siting of slaughterhouses in Scotland has yet reported; and what recommendations it has made.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): The Committee are still receiving written evidence from interested organisations and are in course of taking oral evidence from those who have submitted written statements. It is not yet possible to say when the Committee's report may be expected

Captain Duncan: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the urgency of this matter, and could he have a word with the Committee with a view to hurrying up their procedure?

Mr. Stuart: I think they are making good progress.

Blown Timber (Clearance)

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the extraction and sale of blown timber in the North-East of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made to date in the removal and disposal of the timber blown down in and around Aberdeenshire during the storm of 31st January, 1953.

Mr. J. Stuart: Arrangements have now been made between owners and timber merchants for disposal of all but about 5 per cent. of the timber involved, and it is expected that this figure will be further reduced. About 28 per cent. of the total blown has been felled and brought to the roadside, and much of this has been converted. The work is proceeding rapidly and I consider that progress to date is as great as could reasonably have been expected. The arrangements for the various forms of transport assistance are working satisfactorily.
On the marketing side, the arrangements for supply to the Railway Executive have proceeded well; and the Scottish coalfield is taking about 90 per cent. of its pitwood requirements from home-grown sources—mainly from the windblown area. The movement of surplus pitwood to England and Wales has greatly accelerated in recent weeks.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister visited this area recently, and does he realise that the progress made is quite disproportionate to the time which has elapsed and that it is interfering with progress in farming and thus with the food supply of the country?

Mr. Stuart: It was a very regrettable disaster, as we all know, but I do not think that the progress is bad, and I hope that within about two years, as we originally stated, it will be possible to complete the operation.

Major McCallum: Are my right hon. Friend's advisers of the opinion that it will be two years or four years before this blown timber is not just sold but actually disposed of and cleared?

Mr. Stuart: As I have said on several occasions, we hope to complete the operation in two years.

Mr. Woodburn: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman's Department on the progress they have so far made in regard to this timber, may I ask whether he is aware that the preparations

for the eventual replanting of these areas may take a long time? Are the Forestry Commission keeping abreast with the problem of whether private owners will be prepared to replant when the time comes?

Mr. Stuart: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have that in mind, and I will make a statement in due course.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that one of the results of the non-disposal and non-removal of timber blown down in Aberdeenshire by the storm of 31st January, 1953, is a large increase in the number of rabbits, which cannot be destroyed where fallen timber still lies; that damage is thereby done to crops; that, as a consequence, trapping is being done in an illegal way; and what steps he is taking to rectify these conditions.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware that windblown timber increases the difficulties of trapping rabbits but, while I am most anxious to facilitate and accelerate the clearance of this timber, the task is one which unfortunately takes time. Assistance is being given to enable owners to clear timber and considerable progress has been made.

Mr. Hughes: Does the answer that the Minister gave to the former Question in regard to two years apply to this Question also? If so, does he not think that it is disgraceful that the food supply of the country should have to wait for two years to have this timber cleared away?

Mr. Stuart: Unfortunately we cannot clear this timber in a matter of weeks, but we are doing our best.

Housing

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland from how many local authorities in Scotland permission to build houses to rent has been withheld or postponed since 1st January, 1953, owing to shortage of labour or materials.

Mr. J. Stuart: None, Sir.

Mrs. White: Can the Minister assure us that the freedom now given, as I understand it, in regard to houses for sale will not in any way diminish the number of houses built by local authorities to rent?

Mr. Stuart: The hon. Member can be assured that, so far as Scotland is concerned—and I am empowered to answer only so far as Scotland is concerned—there should be no diminution in the number of houses to let.

Unclassified Roads (Improvements)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give some special assistance to counties, such as Shetland, to enable them to put a proper foundation and tarmac surface on essential untarred roads.

Mr. J. Stuart: As the hon. Member is aware, I can make grants for the improvement of unclassified roads in the crofting counties, and I am always ready to consider any particular schemes of this nature which the county councils concerned may put forward.

Mr. Grimond: As the Minister will know from his recent experience, many of these roads require to be practically re-made. Will he look very carefully into the question of what assistance can be given, because county councils with a very small rateable value are incapable of putting a great mileage of roads in order, to serve the districts as they ought to be served?

Mr. Stuart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we consider schemes very carefully. I realise that there are many roads which require attention and I assure him that we will do our best to assist. I was dealing in my answer with unclassified roads, to which I thought he referred.

Mr. J. MacLeod: Can the Minister see that in any census, the weight of traffic on these roads is taken into account and not always the number of vehicles that pass over them? This makes a considerable difference.

Mr. Stuart: It certainly does make a great difference in the speed with which the road breaks down.

Eggs (Marketing)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the long-term arrangements for the marketing of eggs.

Mr. J. Stuart: No, Sir. The Government are at present considering the future arrangements for egg marketing, but no decision has yet been reached. The N.F.U.'s have been asked to submit their proposals as soon as possible.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister give us any indication when a decision may be reached and an assurance that before a decision is reached the special problems of the more remote areas will be carefully considered?

Mr. Stuart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are aware of the difficulties of the more remote areas, as was stated in the recent announcement, but I am afraid that I cannot at this stage say when we shall be able to announce a final decision.

Mr. Woodburn: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have no policy in this matter?

Mr. Stuart: I would rather not announce policy at this stage.

Captain Duncan: If the National Farmers' Unions are not producing an egg marketing scheme, will the Government produce one?

Mr. Stuart: It is the duty of the Government to deal with the matter, and we shall await the advice of the farmers' unions.

Edinburgh Prison (Escapes)

Sir W. Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the recent occurrences at Saughton Gaol, Edinburgh; if he is aware that these are causing some anxiety to Edinburgh citizens, especially those in proximity to the gaol itself; and what steps he is taking to prevent such cases in future.

Mr. J. Stuart: Yes, Sir. I am aware that there have been an unusual number of escapes from Edinburgh Prison during the past year. A number of measures have already been taken to strengthen the security arrangements, and further precautions are under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANZUS COUNCIL (U.K. PARTICIPATION)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Australia, New Zealand and United States Defence Pact.

Mr. Hale: asked the Prime Minister whether arrangements have now been made for full British participation in the Australia, New Zealand and United States Treaty Organisation.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): The A.N.Z.U.S. Council held their second annual meeting at Washington on 9th and 10th September, and we have been fully informed of the discussions. The Council then decided not to extend their membership.

Mr. Wyatt: May I first of all ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that all of us, even those who disagree with him most, are very glad to see him back here in full health and that the House of Commons is a duller place without him? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Now may I ask him whether his answer means that he has abandoned any hope of having Britain included in the Anzus Defence Pact and whether, when Mr. Casey said that the right hon. Gentleman was fully satisfied with the position, that is true?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I have previously said on this subject. I regret the decision, but my reasons have already been given to the House.

Mr. Hale: Surely the Prime Minister will now at least add some apology, or make some public penance, to my right hon. Friends for the denunciations he made a year or two ago when they took up precisely the same attitude, and——

Hon. Members: Question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not make a speech.

Mr. Hale: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the House was so disorderly that I do not know what you have just said.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seemed to be making a speech rather

than asking a supplementary question. A question should be interrogative in form.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. My opening words were, "Surely the right hon. Gentleman will now—." According to my education, I have always regarded that as the interrogative form. For those who do not agree, I will put it more interrogatively still. Is the Prime Minister now prepared to make some apology for the denunciations to which I have referred, and which were apparently in those days the product of simulated indignation?

The Prime Minister: I certainly did not come here to make an apology, and least of all to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will now renew his attempt to hold a conference between the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Prime Minister of France and the Prime Minister of Great Britain;
(2) what arrangements will now be made to hold the postponed Bermuda Conference.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister what action he now proposes to take in an effort to arrange a meeting of the leaders of the Four Powers.

Mr. Jay: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his welcome restoration to full health, he will invite the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of France to resume the arrangements for the Three-Power Conference at Bermuda, which it was previously proposed to hold in July.

The Prime Minister: The plan of a Bermuda Conference arose out of the proposal of the President of the United States that a Three-Power meeting should be held in Maine. Our suggestion about a different rendezvous was accepted. I regret that owing to ill health I was unable to go and the conference was postponed. Four months have passed since then and a good many things have happened.
For instance, as a result of the Foreign Ministers' meeting in London this weekend, the Soviet Government have been invited to attend a conference of Foreign Ministers at Lugano on 9th November. We think such a meeting would be an invaluable step towards a reduction of international tension and a solution of major European problems. We hope Mr. Molotov will accept. It would not be the first time he has discussed delicate and serious questions with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
This involves no change in our outlook. Our view remains that friendly, informal, personal talks between the leading figures in the countries mainly involved might do good and could not easily do much harm. Her Majesty's Government have in no way given up this thought. But, as the Leader of the Opposition wisely said at Margate:
In all international matters it is as well to remember that there is a limit to what can be done by one Government.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the Prime Minister confirm or deny the story which appeared in the "Daily Express" this morning to the effect that if President Eisenhower is unwilling to meet Mr. Malenkov and himself, the right hon. Gentleman himself is prepared to meet Mr. Malenkov?

The Prime Minister: I should be opening very wide doors if I undertook to confirm or deny everything that appeared in the Press.

Mr. Jay: Does the Prime Minister recall that when the Bermuda Conference was deferred President Eisenhower, in a message to the right hon. Gentleman, said that he regarded it as only a temporary postponement. In view of that, cannot the Prime Minister invite the President to resume the arrangements?

The Prime Minister: Things have moved on, and decisions have to be taken in the light of circumstances prevailing at any one moment.

Mr. Dodds: While appreciating the effort that the Prime Minister made earlier in the year, may I ask why he does not state that the opposition to that plan is so great that it is now as dead as the dodo? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Doddo."] Will not the right hon. Gentleman once again get the initiative, and fulfil the promise to millions of people, by

making a declaration that he will be prepared to meet Mr. Malenkov as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I do not think this would be a particularly suitable occasion for the House of Commons to discuss that topic.

Mr. Foot: Is it not a fact that during the Recess a statement was issued from 10, Downing Street saying that the Prime Minister's proposal of 11th May for high level talks had been rejected owing to the opposition of the United States and French Governments? Is it not a fact also that the French Government have repudiated that statement? And indeed it has been stated by "The Times" correspondent in Paris that proposals made at the Washington Conference by the acting Foreign Secretary were not for high-level talks with Mr. Malenkov at an early date but only that those talks should take place after the ratification of the E.D.C. treaty. Is it not time that the House of Commons was told the truth?

The Prime Minister: There is no Question on the Order Paper about that, but I must say when the hon. Gentleman talks about telling the House of Commons the truth he should remember that other statements are made, other than in the House of Commons, some of them in weekly newspapers.

Mr. H. Morrison: When the Prime Minister says that things have moved forward since his declaration of 11th May, does he not really mean that things have moved backwards?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the evil things have moved backwards and that the hopeful and fortunate things for the world have moved forward. It is a hope only.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON CONFERENCE

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish as a White Paper the cables which went between the Acting Foreign Secretary and the Cabinet during the Washington Conference.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Donnelly: Is it not a fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has said, that an official French statement has accused a senior Minister of the Crown of not telling the truth about the Washington talks? In view of the fact that that Minister is not in the House of Commons and therefore is not answerable to the House of Commons, is there no way whereby we can have a full statement on a situation where this Minister's integrity is impugned?

The Prime Minister: If accusing Ministers of not telling the truth were to be accepted as a pretext for publishing all kinds of secret Foreign Office communications, I think very awkward situations might easily arise.

Mr. McNeil: Since a much larger point is at issue than whether or not an accusation against a Minister is justified, will the Prime Minister not agree that, since our allies the French Government seem not to be informed in the same terms as the right hon. Gentleman about the conduct of business at Washington, this point ought to be cleared by an unambiguous statement by the right hon. Gentleman now?

The Prime Minister: I do not know what particular action is called for from me. I made a statement to clear up some, as I thought, statements which might lead to misunderstanding when I was abroad, and full explanations have been made of their position by the French. Since then I have had the opportunity of talking things over with M. Bidault himself.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME GUARD (LONG SERVICE MEDAL)

Mr. Alport: asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend to Her Majesty the Queen the institution of a long service medal for the Home Guard on conditions comparable to those pertaining to similar awards to the Territorial Army and cadet forces.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is considering this proposal. Perhaps my hon. Friend will address a Question to him later.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITY FRANCHISE (GOVERNMENT DECISION)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the restoration of university seats.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government continue to regret the abolition of the university seats as a breach of the all-party understanding at the Speaker's Conference of 1944. Time has, however, moved on and after a full sympathetic review of the question, we do not wish to raise all the controversy which this restoration of plural voting would involve. Neither can we accept as satisfactory the alternative of filling university seats by the votes of those graduates alone who, if given the choice, would vote in a university instead of a territorial constituency. For these reasons the Government have decided, with regret, that restoration of university seats in the House of Commons should be dropped.

Mr. Harvey: Does the Prime Minister realise that hon. Members on this side of the House, while regretting the circumstances under which these seats were abolished and the loss of valuable Members of this House, recognise the wisdom of this decision? Does he also realise that, the value of university representation having been vitiated by being brought into party political spite, this decision will be applauded by everyone?

Dr. King: Is the Prime Minister aware that on this side of the House we welcome his late conversion to the democratic principle of "One man, one vote"?

Sir H. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend realise that about one-quarter of the graduate electors in fact were serving overseas and that this was the only device whereby large British communities overseas had any contact with the House of Commons?

Mr. H. Morrison: Whilst repudiating the Prime Minister's allegations about the Speaker's Conference—it was amply debated at the time—may I, on behalf of us all on this side of the House, say that although the Prime Minister made specific pledges upon this matter, nevertheless we welcome the fact that he has decided to abandon those specific pledges


and not to complicate the electoral system by resorting to a return to an utterly undemocratic device?

The Prime Minister: It was not an utterly undemocratic device which the right hon. Gentleman and his Leader, who is sitting near him, agreed to during the talks when we were looking at these matters from a national and not from a party point of view.

Mr. Attlee: Has the Prime Minister not always put the point of university seats not from the national point of view but from the hope that it would give him a majority?

The Prime Minister: I have frequently disagreed very much with some of the statements made by university Members. Of course it may be that the trend of things is to put the most gifted intellectuals in this country more solidly upon the Conservative side. That, no doubt, is an explanation of the right hon. Gentleman's change of position.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make about business?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. I have a short statement to make on the business for this week.
Arrangements have been made through the usual channels for a debate to take place on the situation in British Guiana on Thursday. A White Paper will be made available in the Vote Office at 6 p.m. this evening.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Foreign Secretary, whose return in health to this House we all welcome so much, a Question of which I have given him Private Notice; namely, whether he has any statement to make on foreign affairs?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): Yes, Sir. I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words.
The House will not expect me, in the compass of an answer to this Question,

to try to deal with the whole range of developments in foreign affairs since the end of July. I will, therefore, concentrate on certain major problems which are now exercising our attention.
As the House is aware, I have just held a full conference with the Foreign Ministers of the United States and France, at which we discussed such topics of first importance as Four-Power talks, Trieste, the projected political conference on Korea, Indo-China and the Israel-Jordan frontier situation.
On the question of Four-Power talks, I have nothing to add to the terms of the Note delivered to the Soviet Government on Sunday, except to say that Her Majesty's Government sincerely hope that the Soviet Government will accept the invitation to a meeting of Foreign Ministers at Lugano on 9th November. Should they do so, I have no doubt that it would be possible to make progress towards a settlement of the German and Austrian questions, and so contribute to a significant reduction in world tension.
Now I come to Trieste, and I should like to start by saying something of the wider background of the decision announced on 8th October by the United Kingdom and United States Governments. It was in 1945 that Allied troops entered Trieste. The Italian Peace Treaty was signed in February, 1947. Under that Treaty a Free Territory of Trieste was constituted. It was to be governed under a provisional régime until the permanent Statute could be brought into force. It was intended that this permanent Statute would be introduced at an early date and would shortly be followed by the withdrawal of British, American and Yugoslav troops. Unfortunately, the permanent Statute has never been introduced, through no fault of ours. I use the word "ours" to cover successive Governments. I need not remind the House of the protracted debates in the Security Council in which all efforts to secure the appointment of a Governor were frustrated.
In March, 1948, the three Governments, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, issued the Tripartite Declaration. That Declaration advocated the award of the whole territory, both Zone A and Zone B, to Italy. This has been a dominant factor in the situation ever since.
In the years which followed, the United Kingdom and the United States Governments, in conjunction with the French Government, have persistently endeavoured to promote a settlement by conciliation between Italy and Yugoslavia. But nationalist feeling in both countries proved too powerful to permit of a mutually acceptable solution.
This was the position when the trouble flared up again in August. Statements and speeches on both sides became more and more violent and the atmosphere dangerously inflamed. Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government consulted together as to how they should deal with this rapidly deteriorating situation. We sought a means to lance this abscess which was poisoning relations between Italy and Yugoslavia.
The solution announced on 8th October was admittedly drastic, but it was designed to meet a situation which would have grown more dangerous had we done nothing. It was imperfect in so far as it would leave some Slovenes under Italian administration and some Italians under Yugoslav administration. But the House must recall that repeated attempts to promote agreement on an ethnic basis had failed. The division of the territory along the zonal boundary seemed to be the only practicable course.
As we made clear in the announcement of 8th October, our action was expected to lead to a final solution. It was not a solution which we had hopes of inducing either side to accept in advance by negotiation. We knew, too, that it would meet with protest and criticism. But from the discussions and contacts which we had had with both parties over many months, we did feel justified in believing that it was a solution each side could acquiesce in, if under protest.
I do not wish today to make any comment on the reaction in Rome and Belgrade. Still less do I want to exacerbate the situation. But I do wish to say that Her Majesty's Government strongly deprecate the movement of troops by either party, which can only increase tension and incite public opinion. Meanwhile, we continue in touch with the United States and French Governments, and also with the Governments of Italy and Yugoslavia, and I shall do my best

to keep the House informed. If all concerned will recall the overriding need for unity between nations who should be good neighbours, I believe that we can yet find means of bringing both parties to agree to a settlement.
Now Egypt. Talks with the Egyptian Government about the defence of the Canal Zone were resumed on 28th July. I hope to be able to make an announcement within the next few days about the progress of these discussions. They have reached an advanced stage, and I trust that the House will not press me to say any more about them today.
I hope that a new chapter has opened in Persia. There is a new Government there, and to them, and to the Persian people, Her Majesty's Government wish sincerely to extend once more the hand of friendship. The Persian Government are aware that we are ready to resume diplomatic relations; if this can be done it will then be easier for us to discuss together the complex problem of Persian oil. I should like to say that the United States Government are working very closely with us in these matters.
In Korea, the truce has been maintained for nearly three months. Progress in consolidating the armistice has been slow and difficult. The political conference has still to meet. The United States Government, acting on behalf of the nations with forces in Korea, have pro-posed a meeting of emissaries on 26th October to discuss arrangements for this conference. I am happy to learn that the Chinese and North Koreans have now agreed to this.
We have also achieved substantial progress in dealing with the exchange of those prisoners of war who desired repatriation. We have all been glad to welcome home our own prisoners of war after their ordeal. A beginning has been made in settling the future of the remaining prisoners. In this connection I must pay a tribute to the part played by the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission and in particular by the Indian Chairman, General Thimáyya, and by the Indian troops under the command of General Thórat. With exemplary tact and patience they have controlled the turbulent prisoners and are carrying through the first stages of the difficult process of explanations as provided for in the Armistice Agreement.
Finally, the problem of Arab-Israel relations, which was only settled provisionally in the General Armistice Agreements of 1949, is again causing grave concern. The immediate reason for this is the attack by Israel forces on three villages in Jordan on the night of 14th October, which inflicted heavy casualties. This attack was strongly condemned by the United Nations Mixed Armistice Commission and appears to have been an organised operation by heavily-armed forces in response to a frontier incident which was already being investigated by Jordan and Israel police working in cooperation.
The House will recall our special responsibilities under the 1950 Tripartite Declaration, and Her Majesty's Government, in concert with the United States and French Governments, have therefore asked the Security Council to consider the situation urgently. I earnestly hope that both the Israel and Jordan Governments will meanwhile refrain from any action which might aggravate the present dangerous situation.

Mr. Attlee: The House will be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. No doubt we shall have a general discussion of these topics in the next Session. I should like to ask two questions on Trieste. First, does not the right hon. Gentleman now realise that it was a mistake to take this action without any prior notice to Yugoslavia? I do not know whether any notice was given to Italy. It is all very well to prick an abscess, but it is not exactly a sedative operation if one does it suddenly and gives no notice. Secondly, what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to proposals for four- or five-Power talks on Trieste now?

Mr. Eden: With regard to the first question, let me say that no advance notice was given to either Government; that is to say, one Government was not treated more favourably than the other. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not know whether advance information had been given to Italy, and, so that there should be no misunderstanding, I say that no advance information was given to Italy. Naturally, careful consideration was given to the question whether advance information should be given, but we

thought that the only chance of this method succeeding was by both Governments being made aware of the matter in the way in which we did it. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) looks very indignant. This is exactly the procedure that was followed in 1948 by the then Government, who gave no advance notice of what they were doing to either Government in that case.
We are certainly considering the question of a conference, and Her Majesty's Government are in no sense averse to a meeting or a conference, but our first task, which is exactly the same as that which has confronted us all through this dispute, is to see whether there are arrangements and terms of reference for the conference which we can ensure shall be acceptable to both sides.

Mr. Attlee: I take it that if there were such a conference, conditions would not be laid down. I understand that there is some difficulty about demands by either side that certain conditions should be laid down. Surely if the matter is to be at all fruitful, there should be a full and free discussion?

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that conditions are being laid down by either side. What we have to see is whether we can get a meeting with terms acceptable to both sides. It is a difficult task, but it is not one of which I by any means despair. If I may say so without any risk of misunderstanding, our chances will be better if we keep in mind the difficulties of the situation we are trying to handle.

Mr. H. Morrison: Having regard to his reference to my feelings—which are not of indignation but very, very sincere regret at the course taken—is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1948 this was not put forward as an operative decision, but as a suggestion which was to be subject, in the end, to discussion by the United Nations, whereas the present Government have taken an operative decision without consultation with anybody, and without even informing the parties concerned beforehand? Does he not think that the result has been very bad and that the danger of war has arisen? Surely it was a most unwise and foolish action to make this unilateral


operative decision, not only without consultation but without prior notice to the parties immediately concerned?

Mr. Eden: The point I was making was that the Yugoslav Government were not consulted about the decision in 1948, and they were not consulted on this occasion. We—that is, the two Governments concerned—had to face a deteriorating situation, and had to decide whether, in the face of that, we did nothing, or whether we should produce this proposal as our own, in the hope that both sides would accept it or acquiesce in it, as we had some reason to believe they might. I think that the situation, if handled quietly now, will yet achieve a peaceful solution.

Mr. C. Davies: Is it not true that we were there in occupation with the authority of the Security Council and, as the situation was deteriorating and the risks of any independent action taken by this Government and that of the United States might have very serious consequences, would not the right thing have been to have consulted with the Security Council before this step was actually taken?

Mr. Eden: That question was considered, but the difficulty was that the Security Council had ceased to deal with the matter since 1949. In that year they ceased to handle it. If we had discussed this at length in the Security Council, with all the Powers there, there would not have been the remotest hope of securing agreement on it between the two Powers concerned.

Sir R. Boothby: On the Israeli-Jordan question, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this latest shocking episode is the culmination of a long series of thefts, raids and murders up and down this frontier over a period of years, not by any means confined to one side? Will he bring all his great influence to bear to see whether it would not be possible to initiate negotiations for a treaty of peace between the State of Israel and the State of Jordan?

Mr. Eden: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that this is the culmination of a series of incidents. That is really the chief reason which motivated us to

take this incident to the Security Council. We thought that that was the best way it should be handled by the three Powers who assumed these particular responsibilities in 1950. It was not in favour or against any particular party to the dispute. I must add that the casualties of this last affair are infinitely heavier than anything which occurred in the earlier raids, which naturally makes it all the more desirable to try to produce a settlement if we can. As a first step, I should like to see some strengthening of the United Nations Commission on the spot.

Mr. Bellenger: On the question of Trieste, in view of the provocative situation in Zone A and Zone B, what is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, and also of the United States Government, regarding the maintenance of the forces of British and American troops in that area?

Mr. Eden: At the moment I do not think I can go beyond what I have said on that situation.

Major Legge-Bourke: With regard to the Israeli matter, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of the incidents that have taken place in the past have been brought about as a result of the unsatisfactory demarcation line between the two sides? In some parts, this line passes between a garden and the house to which that garden belongs. When the United Nations consider this matter, will he therefore see whether they can review the whole situation, including the demarcation line? Until that is settled, we shall continue to have incidents.

Mr. Eden: That is true. It is also true that the United Nations must have notice of this actual incident if their influence is to be great enough to be able to deal with the matter mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. S. Silverman: I have two questions. First, with regard to the Israeli-Jordan frontier incident, when the right hon. Gentleman says that the incident has been referred to the Security Council does he mean that this incident alone has been referred to it, or the whole question of maintaining peace on the frontier? Secondly, with regard to Trieste, has all hope been


abandoned of being able to implement the original arrangements to which everybody consented in the Peace Treaty of 1947?

Mr. Eden: The answer to the second question is, I am afraid, "Yes, Sir." It was really abandoned by the declaration of 1948. With regard to Israel, I should be obliged if the hon. Member would put down a Question about terms of reference. My recollection is that the terms of reference are wider than this incident itself. I only meant that this incident cannot be ignored in dealing with the situation.

Sir W. Fletcher: Has my right hon. Friend anything to tell the House on the question of Indo-China?

Mr. Eden: I have nothing to add beyond the terms of our communiqué following our discussion. If my hon. Friend puts down a Question, I will consider whether I can make a fuller statement.

Mr. Attlee: In view of the gravity of the situation, may I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he would arrange for us to have a debate during this Session on the question of Trieste?

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. I will discuss that through the usual channels, if I may.

NEW MEMBER

William Noble Warbey, Esquire, for Broxtowe.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crook-shank.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [24th July]

Resolution reported:

Orders of the Day — ENEMY PROPERTY

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to enemy property, it is expedient to provide for the payment into the Exchequer of income received by custodians of enemy property (including income so received by way of discount on the purchase of Treasury Bills), being income received by such custodians either after the passing of the said Act, or before the passing thereof but after the coming into operation of the Trading with the Enemy (Custodian) Order, 1939.

Resolution agreed to

ENEMY PROPERTY BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(PROVISIONS AS TO MAKING OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS AND WITHHOLD- ING OF PAYMENTS.)

3.45 p.m.

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the first two Amendments to this Clause—in page 2, line 34, leave out from "person," to end of line 38, and in page 3, line 2, leave out "or (c)"—and the fifth Amendment—in page 3, line 12, leave out paragraph (b)—were taken together, as well as the three Amendments to Clause 5.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out from "person," to the end of line 38.
I quite agree, Sir Charles, that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the Amendments to which you have referred were taken together because to a considerable extent the later Amendments depend on the results of any decision which may be taken in respect of the first Amendment. I think that at this stage, in order that there need not be repetition later in respect of the various Amendments which we propose, it might be advisable for me to deal with this Amendment at somewhat greater length


than will be necessary in respect of the other Amendments.
This Measure is very intricate and very technical. It is full of all sorts of legal difficulties, but the subject matter of the Bill itself is not quite as intricate as the terms which have to be used in the Bill in order to bring such a Measure on to the Statute Book. Paragraph (c), which we seek to delete, does not deal with action taken in prosecution of the war effort or in order to gather the fruits of victory. I would point out to the Committee that such action would already have been completed and the property put into the custodian's hands before this paragraph could come into operation at all.
If this paragraph were retained in the Bill, it would have effect only when the custodian erroneously paid away what was already in his hands. I want to ask the Minister who is to reply why the custodian should be protected against the consequences of that payment more than any other person is protected—for example, more than a bank would be protected if it paid out money erroneously.
This is not a matter which is unilateral. I am sorry that when the Parliamentary Secretary replied to some comments I made on Second Reading, he saw fit to regard them as not being very important. I would have him remember that this is a matter of international law. International law is involved, and a unilateral attack on the provisions or the regulations which have been adopted under international law is a very dangerous thing.
When I suggested that the breach of contract or the breach of arrangement which resulted in confiscation without compensation might even be used as a reply to any case which might be made, for example in respect of the Iranian oil, the hon. and learned Gentleman thought fit to ridicule the idea. I hope he has thought a little better about it since then, and I hope he has realised that every single attack which is made upon an international law which deals with the rights of an individual, or a company or a corporation which happens to be a foreign one, might have very serious repercussions elsewhere.
What does this paragraph seek to do? It is intended by the paragraph to prevent an individual from reclaiming

moneys which were due and are due to him providing he could and can prove his case legally and legitimately. It is not a question of an enemy alien at all, because an enemy alien in the proper sense of the term would not be affected by this provision. It is intended to deal with an individual who is not an enemy alien in the correct sense of the term—a person who was an allied national, for example; a person who perhaps was a partisan on our side in the course of the war. If he had left certain moneys in this country which the custodian managed to get, that person, even though he were legally entitled to that money and could prove that he was legally entitled to it, would not be in a position to recover it.
4.0 p.m.
There may be some parts of this Bill that are justifiable, but certainly not this particular part. I would point out, for example, that a number of people, owing to persecution by the very States which were enemies, and who would properly be considered as enemy aliens, people who were the last remaining members of large families that had been slaughtered, Jewish people and others, had had to flee from Germany and found themselves in other countries and found themselves unable to claim funds which were left in this country by them or by their relatives. The custodian took those moneys, and today it is intended to make it impossible for those people to recover the moneys to which they are legally entitled.
I see the Attorney-General is here, and I hope that he, with his great grasp of the law, will agree with me that it is a highly undesirable thing to prevent such people as that from being able to recover what is in fact legally their due. In these circumstances I should like to know whether he is aware, or whether his colleagues are aware, that there is no similar act of Parliament or act of a Government, so far as I know anyhow, in any other country.
Why we should be the first country in the world to introduce legislation which prevents the victims of Nazi persecution, and, indeed, British nationals, from recovering what they are legitimately entitled to, I do not know; and I hope that in these circumstances this particular request of ours contained in this Amendment will be acceptable to the Government, and that they will remove from the


Bill a paragraph which is offensive not only to legal principles but to all moral principles.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I am sorry if anything I said in the Second Reading debate gave the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) the impression that I made light of anything he then said. It is true that I thought he did misunderstand the nature of the problem to a large degree; and I am bound to say that I think that he, with, I am sure, the best intentions, has done so today. He is really repeating in these Amendments what was the main issue of principle on the Second Reading.
This is, of course, an indemnity Bill. It is perfectly true that if no mistake of any sort has been made by anybody, nobody needs an indemnity; but if we have once decided that there shall be an indemnity in a proper case, one has to consider whether this is a proper case. I think that the hon. Member, if he will consider the matter a little more carefully, will see that the case where payment has been made by the competent authority under subsection (1, c) of this Clause may be precisely the case where the authorities did their best to pay to the right person but it is proved that they paid to the wrong one.
I know how much the hon. Member has this cause at heart. He mentioned some of the refugees from oppression on the Continent who arrived here very often during the war. But they may have been the very people to whom the release was in fact made. If there was not to be an indemnity following the war, as there had been following previous wars, the only effect on the authorities would have been that they could never have risked any release in however good faith without the strictest legal proof. Sometimes a great deal of foreign law might have been involved. It would have prevented what the hon. Member himself would have thought to have been a whole series of desirable releases.
Let me remind the hon. Member that in the cases where the custodian has released moneys there have very often been releases not to the original owners but to their Governments on their behalf under money and property agreements concluded between the Government and the various allied Governments. It would be

wholly improper, where there has been a perfectly bona fide payment as described in Clause 1, to refuse to apply the indemnity provisions of this Bill.
I would also point out to the hon. Member that the principle of these Amendments would also cover controllers appointed by the Board of Trade to wind up enemy businesses under Section 3 (a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, and this would lead to complication in cases where the controller, who is always an independent accountant of high standing, had already completed his winding-up and received his discharge from the Board of Trade. I can say this in answer to the hon. Member, and remind him—it may be of some comfort to him—that if the custodian, as in many cases has happened, has handed over the money in question to an administrator for distribution, the owner has already a right of recovery against the administrator under the existing law.
I have dealt with this matter shortly because I think that will be generally the wish of the Committee. While I agree with the hon. Member that of course an indemnity Act has no application unless somebody has at some time exceeded his legal rights, if there ever was a case where indemnity would be rightly given it is in this case which we seek to cover by this Clause. For these reasons, I advise the Committee to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Janner: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not given an answer that, in my view, is satisfactory. I do not understand why he is hedging on the matter. He knows that cases were quoted in another place and here at the time of the Second Reading. I do not want to repeat the cases or the explanations. What he overlooks is that by this particular subsection he is depriving, whatever else he may say, the rightful owner—not an enemy alien—of the opportunity of recovering what is rightfully due to him. No matter how many mistakes may be made, we ought not to be in a position to deprive the individual, if he happens to be a British subject, of the right to claim back something which belongs to him.
This is an ungenerous Act, and the peculiar part of it is this. To the same kind of illustration as the hon. and learned Gentleman has given in respect of mistakes which may have been, or


have been, made by the authorities themselves, the same answer may or will be made by an individual who has made a mistake, or a bank which has made a mistake, or any corporation which has made a mistake. The fact still remains that they are not in any sense protected in consequence of what happened during the war or at any other time. They have today to face their responsibilities. There is also the human side of it. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he realises that many of the people concerned are people who can well do with the funds which have been wrongfully taken from them owing to somebody's mistake.
I think that, in the circumstances, the answer which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given is not a satisfactory one, and I hope that between now and the Report stage he will think again about this point, and see whether he cannot do something which will at least go some way towards meeting that for which we are asking.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have listened very carefully to what has been said, and I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that obviously if this is a Bill to indemnify certain people it must live up to its title and what is contained in the Bill and indemnify those who have at some time legitimately made mistakes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) drew attention on the Second Reading to the fact that there are very hard cases of individuals who have suffered loss through moneys being paid over to interests which should not have so claimed, and that being so, may I add my appeal to that made by my hon. Friend and ask the Government to look at this matter again in order to see whether some different wording could be inserted to help those people who have suffered loss because of mistakes legitimately made during the war and after it.

Mr. H. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman has put his case with such moderation and courtesy that I should certainly say, "Yes" to his proposal if I did not think that it might mislead him. The fact is that this matter has received the closest and most detailed examination

by the Board of Trade, the Law Departments and by everyone concerned, including those in another place, and I really should be misleading the Committee if I suggested that we could improve upon the Clause in any essential way.
As for the cases quoted by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, I hope that he will recollect what I ventured to say in reply in the Second Reading debate, that I think that he did give—I know in perfectly good faith—a misleading impression of the general position.

Amendment negatived.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I beg to move in page 3, line 6, to leave out from "(a)," to first "to," line 9, and to insert:
it shall be the duty of that authority to pay the amount thereof.

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment was considered with the Amendment in page 3, line 11, at the end, to insert:
and the said amount shall be recoverable from the competent authority as if it were the person mentioned in the said paragraph (a), notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section.

Mr. Janner: I imagine, Sir Charles, that these two Amendments will not be easy to follow by the average Member, but I shall try to make clear what our point of view is with regard to them.
In my view, the effect of Clause 2 is that if, for example, the bank pays to a competent authority, there is, first, a release to the bank and, secondly, no right of recovery from the competent authority. Thirdly, if the competent authority has paid over to a third party there may be no right of recovery against the third party, and, therefore, the innocent owner is left without a legal remedy.
Let me give an example. Perhaps the examples that were given before are useful, and, if I may say so with respect, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will appreciate that I cannot accept what he said with regard to my previous examples or, indeed, as I assume that he included them in his remarks, the examples given in another place and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester. North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas)
I would point out, for example, that a Pole who escaped to fight with the Polish forces here, or even a British subject fighting with the British forces would have no right of recovery. It is perhaps right that the bank should be released, but it is quite wrong that the innocent owner should have no right of recovery from the competent authority. That is our view.
If the innocent owner had had property other than money handed over to the competent authority, then under Clause 3, subsections 4 and 5. he would have the right to recover from the custodian the property or its proceeds in the custodian's possession. It is very difficult to recover the property and damages from the person to whom the custodian has handed over, otherwise than on a sale. It is argued that no rights should be given to the innocent owner—I assume that is the argument of the Government—against the custodian or persons to whom the custodian handed over the property if it happened to be money.
First of all, that money is recoverable at law if it is identifiable, and the Bill takes away the right to recovery. Secondly, indemnity in itself—and the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the question of indemnity—is an interference with the law taking away the right which the owner would have had where the payment was unauthorised. If we took away this right we could make it conditional that the money paid over to the custodian should be recovered as a matter of right.
I hope I may be forgiven for referring to Clause 4, which we have not yet reached, because the Clauses are mixed up with each other and one has to refer to others to show where this Clause is affected by the provisions of the others. According to Clause 4, page 5, line 16, money wrongly paid to the custodian is repaid to the rightful owner as a matter of discretion. In Clause 2 (2, a) the Bill gives that person a legal right to the interest on the repaid money. All that we ask is that there should similarly be a legal right to repayment of the capital.
It has been said that it is the practice of the Board of Trade to direct the custodian to release moneys wrongly paid to him. In our view this should not be just a matter of ex gratia discretion; it

should be a matter of right and not one to be determined by the Civil Service. We should only give indemnity if we provide for payment as a matter of right.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) knows that some of my hon. Friends and I support some of his misgivings and did so during the Second Reading debate. I believe he is on stronger ground with this Amendment than he was with the previous Amendment. Clearly, in an indemnity Bill one gives an indemnity to the persons or officials who, through no fault of their own, may have done the wrong thing in a moment of stress. No one would quarrel with that. That is a different question from whether or not the public purse—not the official concerned, but the public purse—should to some extend stand behind the mistake and not allow an innocent party to suffer.
I should like to have some information from the Parliamentary Secretary. Am I correct in believing that Clause 2 (2) really authorises the competent authority to make ex gratia payments? That matter was under discussion during the Second Reading and I urged that there should be that authority in the body of the Bill. Is it the view of my hon. and learned Friend and the Government that the subsection has sufficient Parliamentary authority, assuming that the Bill soon receives the Royal Assent, here and now for the Treasury to make ex gratia payments without further legislation being necessary? If so, it certainly influences my view of the Bill very considerably. I could see no reason at the time of the Second Reading why the President of the Board of Trade should add a rider to his promise relating to ex gratia payments on the ground that it could only be done if and when Parliament gave its approval, because it would mean a payment out of public funds.
I understand the subsection to say that, even when the money or property has gone to the wrong hands through understandable mistakes, there is nothing to prevent the authority from recompensing in some way the right hands. I read it quickly and may have it wrong, but I should like to know if that is so. If it is not so, I should like to know whether there is anything in the Bill which


authorises the giving of ex gratia payments. If not, it ought to be put in.
What is happening here is that in so far as property or money which has been paid away wrongly cannot in the event be traced by the innocent hands, the innocent party has no redress. Of course, if it remains in the hands of the custodian or administrator, then by the next Clause the innocent party has a right of redress. Even if it has gone on to other hands and he can trace it, he has a right of redress against those hands, but if it has gone abroad or disappeared in some way, then the proposal of these two Clauses is that he has no redress at all against the public authority which was the source of the error and the source of his damage.
That being so, we really ought to see that there is power at least, if not duty, in the Bill for the public authority to compensate that wholly innocent person. I should like to see that in the Bill before we part with it, and I hope, although I do not believe, that it is in this subsection.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am grateful to the two hon. Gentlemen who have put succintly the points with which they desire me to deal. In making their points, they have necessarily mentioned Clause 3.
The real reason for the differences between dealing with money and dealing with property was the legal difference which I tried to explain in my Second Reading speech. There is a great difference in law between physical property and what lawyers—we who are taking part in the present debate are all lawyers—call a chose in action. The example which I gave on Second Reading was that if there was any debt by a bank and the money was paid by the bank to the custodian, if the money was wrongly paid, the bank remained liable for the debt.
If a right of action were given against the custodian, it would be a right of action wholly novel in law and, in the Government's submission, not suitable for inclusion in an indemnity Bill. I then went on to point out to the House, as I now point out to the Committee, that the difference is merely a technical one since there is no intention whatever for the custodian not to pay out the money where he still has it and where his receipt of it was due to a mistake either of law or of fact.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) did not say how novel that right would be but asked why it should not be given even if it were a wholly novel right. I will give him a number of reasons why it should not be given. In the first place, it would give a right of recovery in a case where, though the money was wrongly paid to a custodian at the time it was paid, the person to whom it was due subsequently became an enemy. Again, there is the case where the person against whom recovery would be sought would be a controller appointed by the Board of Trade to wind up a business who might have completed the winding up and had his discharge.
There is a further point which I wish to put to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, and also to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), who has just entered the Chamber, for I know that he will appreciate at once the point which arises under his Amendment. While the words:
… to or for the benefit of any person to or for whose benefit the amount or part could lawfully have been paid apart from this section …
are quite apt in order to cover any person to whom the custodian should have discretion to make repayment, they would not be apt to describe the person who would have a legal right to sue.
More than one person might claim to fall within that description.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, I am dealing more with the form of his Amendment than the substance, but he will appreciate the point. I would also point out to him and others, that if the custodian, as very often happens, has handed the money over to an administrator of enemy property for distribution the owner already has a right of recovery under the existing law against the administrator.
4.30 p.m.
I now turn, if I may, to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cook). Let me tell him at once that the passage on ex gratia payments read by my right hon. Friend in moving the Second Reading has nothing whatever to do with this subsection. The ex gratia payments to which he referred do not come within the Bill at all.


They are for cases of possible hardship which, in the light of experience, may be found to exist. The ex gratia payments are given with the consent of the Treasury, and they have formally to appear in a Vote which is passed by this House. That is the authority.
What this subsection does is to enable the competent authority, who holds money which may have been paid to him under a mistake of law or of fact, to pay out the money in every proper case. And it is certainly intended to use that power. The one thing that is not given is the statutory right to sue, and I have explained that the reason for that is that it would be a wholly novel right. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman for Leicester, North-East that if he tries his great skill in drafting he will find it extremely difficult to draft such a right that would be as satisfactory as a discretionary power to be used in all proper cases of mistake.
This Clause is quite suitable and apt. The sole reason for this difference between this Clause and the next is not a difference of intention as to how we should deal with people whose money or property has been wrongly taken, but the very great difference in law between physical property and a chose in action. With that explanation I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied, and I advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Janner: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to use the ingenuity of the draftsmen to enable him to carry those intentions into full and proper effect. As I understand the position now, he admits that there should be a right on the part of the individual and not merely a right on the part of the authorities to decide whether an individual or a corporation should receive this money. I cannot see any difficulty. We have done our best in the Amendment we have put forward to meet the case, and in view of the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman intends precisely to do what we are asking him to do I cannot see why he should not incorporate it in some way or another in the Clause itself.
I am sure that the learned Attorney-General would agree with me on this, because I am quite positive that if he thinks the same as his hon. and learned

Friend about the intention, he will be able to find a way of dealing with it between now and the Report stage to enable the right to be given. That is our intention. It is no good leaving it to the Civil Service to do what we are anxious about. I think this right should be given and should be exercisable by the person who has been injured. We hope, in those circumstances, that, even if this Amendment is defeated at this stage, there will still be second thoughts between now and the Report stage.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(PROVISIONS AS TO OTHER DEALINGS WITH PROPERTY.)

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, to leave out "custodian," and to insert "competent authority."

The Chairman: I think that this Amendment and the next one, in page 4, line 9, leave out "custodian," and insert "competent authority." should be taken together.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: This is purely an Amendment seeking information, and I will explain why it was put down. I see that in Clause 3, page 3, line 42, the words follow those in Clause 2 (1, c). I gather that they do so almost word for word, with the substitution of the word "custodian" in page 3, line 42, for the words "competent authority" in Clause 2 (1, c). I should like to know why the difference is made, because I should have thought that prima facie the words "competent authority" should have been brought in somewhere. I gather that the intention in line 42 is to cut down the competent authority to the custodian, and doubtless there is some good reason for that. I should like to know what is the explanation.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I should like to help the hon. and learned Gentleman if I can. As to the first of the two Amendments, as I understand it no competent authority except the custodian would have endeavoured to transfer property within these words "to or for the benefit of …" and so on. That wording is taken from the Trading with the Enemy (Custodian) Order, 1939, Article 3 (ii).


Therefore, our view was that in this case, in page 3, line 42, there was no need to insert the words "competent authority."
If I might anticipate what may happen, I should say that we feel that the second Amendment has considerably more justification because in that case the effect of substituting "competent authority" would make it apply also to various persons who were appointed under the Trading with the Enemy Act to wind up businesses, and so on. There is no objection to that so long as the provision is confined to cases where the custodian still has the property or the proceeds in his possession. Therefore, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree, I suggest that he might have the second of these Amendments but not the first.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am very much obliged to the learned Attorney-General for that explanation. I was puzzled whether in the case of line 42 there would be cases in which either the Board of Trade or an administrator would be involved, but I gather that that is not so. Therefore, obviously there is no point to that Amendment.
I was glad to hear what the Attorney-General said about the Amendment in page 4, line 9, but that, of course, is without prejudice to the Amendment which is next on the Order Paper with regard to whether or not it should be confined to property in possession or under control at the time. In view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 4, line 9, leave out "custodian," and insert "competent authority."—[Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas.]

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, after "control," to insert:
and if the property were dealt with in the circumstances specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of this Act, the said property or the value thereof shall be recoverable from the competent authority to the same extent as it would have been recoverable from the person mentioned in the said paragraph (a) if this Act had not been passed.
As it stands sub-section (4, a) limits the right of recovery from the custodian or

competent authority of the property in his possession or under his control without providing for any remedy where he has parted with the property or proceeds. This point was raised elsewhere, it was left rather open and, as far as I am aware, there has been no explanation by the Government. The words which we propose to be inserted would provide that where the property or proceeds which were wrongly in the hands of the custodian were disposed of by him, the innocent owner should have a statutory right to have them made good to him. There may be some good technical reasons, so I hope that there will be a reasonable explanation of why those words are not included.

Mr. H. Strauss: I confess that I was puzzled by the Amendment when I first saw it on the Order Paper, because I was not sure that the reference to the circumstances was really that which was intended by the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, I think I have gathered the intention behind this Amendment, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman wants me to deal with it on general lines and not worry too much about the wording.
I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. On Second Reading I drew attention to the rights that are retained under subsection (5) of this Clause. Notwithstanding that the custodian has parted with the property, the Amendment asks that he should be liable and responsible. It is worth examining how he would have parted with the property. He will either have transferred it to an administrator of enemy property or he will have released it. If he has handed it to an administrator, the owner has a right of recovery under the existing law, as the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware. If, however, the property has been released we think that subsection (5) is appropriate and that it is not right to make the custodian liable.
Supposing the competent authority were a person other than a custodian, the effect of the Amendment would be more serious still. Such a person could, in practice, only be a controller appointed by the Board of Trade under Section 3 (A) of the Trading with the Enemy Act. If a controller no longer had the property or proceeds in his possession or under his control it would mean that he had completed the winding up of the business and


had obtained his discharge. In those circumstances, it would be difficult to create new rights against him as the Amendment proposes.
4.45 p.m.
I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that those observations have some force, but I would bring a further point to his attention, because it may influence him in his knowledge of what may be involved in this discussion. As far as Allied persons are concerned, who were enemies merely by reason of the occupation of their territories, they have been free to sue ever since their territories have been reoccupied. Further, Germans have been free to sue since the state of war was terminated in July, 1951, and the courts have never been closed to neutrals.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, therefore, that by this indemnity we are, in effect, imposing a time limit. We are saying that these custodians and competent authorities must now have security. When it is remembered that some classes of people have at all times had a right of action and that the others for the periods I have mentioned have had a right of action, it will be seen that there has been no widespread suffering by reason of this part of the Clause which the Amendment seeks to alter. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press his Amendment which, in any event, I could not advise the Committee to accept.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I apologise to the Committee for not having been here at the beginning of this discussion but, unfortunately, I was detained elsewhere. As a result I feel hesitant about going over ground which doubtless has been covered already by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner). The difficulty I feel is this: the custodian has property in his hands. He parts with that property. At the moment of his parting with it that property has nothing to do with gathering the fruits of victory or prosecuting the war. He is in precisely the same position, or should be in precisely the same position, in parting with what is in his hands as anybody else who parts with property which he holds.
What is given under this Bill is a clean indemnity. We are anxious to make

sure that the principle of indemnity should not extend beyond prosecuting the war and gathering the fruits of victory. If that is the first principle to be established, there is no conceivable reason why an indemnity should be given, beyond that, when he makes a payment out——

Mr. H. Strauss: We are not dealing here with payments.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No, with a transfer, but the same principle applies as to the payments under the earlier Clause. When he makes a transfer out there is no conceivable reason why he should be protected. There may be an answer to this. I am not saying that I am making an irrefutable case, because this Bill is full of complexities, but I am presenting my difficulty to the hon. and learned Gentleman as I see it. There appears to me to be no reason why an indemnity should be given to the custodian any more than an indemnity is given to a bank or to anybody else who pays out money; that is my difficulty.
Therefore, if the custodian, the competent authority, or whoever it may be, transfers property in circumstances in which there would be a right of action against the transferor of that property, it seems to me that that right of action should also be preserved as against the competent authority. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman understands the point I am making, although I do not say that it is necessarily correct. What we seek to do, therefore, is to preserve such right of action as the real owner would otherwise have.
I appreciate that the other subsections to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred preserve a right of action against the transferee to whom the custodian has transferred the property, provided that it is not a transfer on sale—that is one thing; so that if there is a transfer on sale, as I understand it, there is no right of action as against the transferee. Therefore, if the right of indemnity is given to the custodian, without any right against the custodian and without any right against the transferee, the true owner of the property is left without any remedy whatever.
Secondly, the right against the transferee might have been effective for a number of either practical or legal


reasons. Previous trusts, for instance, are preserved in priority to the transferee, and so on. It seems to me, therefore, that the indemnity which the Bill provides results, or might result, in the true owner of the property being deprived of all remedy of any kind.
I fully appreciate that in my analysis of all this, I may have overlooked some essential point which is an answer to it. Not only is the Bill itself full of complexity, but the whole background to it is complex. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to show either that my fears are groundless or that, at any rate, by administrative action the kind of hardship which I and my hon. Friends have in mind will be met.

Mr. H. Strauss: I can add very little in answer to what the hon. and learned Member said, except that there was one interchange before he was able to arrive which may be germane to the argument. It might be an attractive thought that a bank—we are not talking about money, but I give this example because the hon. and learned Member gave it—had released money wrongly, and one could say that a mistake had caused it to remain liable; but the fact is that the bank would not release it until there was overwhelming proof and no possibility of mistake.
If, however, the custodian and the authorities had acted throughout on that principle, it might have been very much against the interests for whom the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) have so often spoken in their arguments. Very often both the releases of money and, in some cases, the transfer of property were precisely to these people who may have been refugees and who produced not, perhaps, a proof which finally, when all the facts are known, is shown to be complete, but which seemed to be quite sufficient to justify the payment or release, and it was quite properly made by the authority. I do not suppose that that authority thought much about anything except doing their duty in the prosecution of the war, but had they stopped to think about it or asked their lawyer friends they would have heard that war is normally followed by an indemnity Act to cover their bona fide actions.
The hon. and learned Member gave a description, from which I do not differ in toto, about the sort of actions of people that we wish to indemnify, but I thought he drew it a little too narrowly. Perhaps a more accurate way of looking at it would be to refer to Clause 1, which, after all, has received the unanimous assent of hon. Members and is in rather wider terms than those which the hon. and learned Member mentioned.
I am sorry if some of these matters sound technical. Although we permit property to be followed in suitable cases, we do not allow damages. This right of action that the hon. and learned Member suggests is something very like damages for conversion. One has to bear in mind the problems which had to be dealt with and, sometimes, the rapidity of action. Take, for example, the urgent necessity of clearing the docks when there was imminent fear of air raids. Was that work to be held up for the most elaborate proofs of what was the real ownership of the goods? It really would not have been practicable.
What we must do is to see that those whom we indemnify satisfy the three conditions that are laid down in Clause 1. The hon. and learned Member may take some pride, perhaps, for some of the things that that Clause contains, because they are some of the things for which he contended. I think he will appreciate, however, that the indemnity which he described in his last speech was really too narrow and that we ought not to deprive of an indemnity those who have parted with property in the circumstances which I have mentioned.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: One has always to be particularly careful when being asked by the Government to pass a Bill containing indemnity provisions. That is my only excuse for inviting the Committee to look somewhat critically at the Clause before we pass from my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment.
I do not accept everything that the Parliamentary Secretary has just said. He said that in some respects a claim for damages was like a right of property to a chose in action; but that is not the main burden of my remarks. He said that there was some analogy between a claim for damages and a claim to property.

Mr. H. Strauss: What I thought I said was that we do not in any of these Clauses concede a right to damages. I was pointing out that the Amendment was giving something very like damages for conversion.

Mr. Fletcher: If that is the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary, it does not appear to be anything like giving a claim for damages. The object of the Amendment, as I understand it, is to preserve for the true owner of the property a right to his property.
I well appreciate that administrative convenience makes it desirable, if not necessary, that a Measure of indemnity should be passed to enable the custodian, the competent authority, or whoever it may be, to deal with this property, which would otherwise remain in dispute for a long period. This is what worries me. Just now the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would urge the Committee to bear in mind that it has always been possible for neutrals to bring proceedings and, since 1951, it has been possible for former German subjects to bring proceedings. But what we have not yet heard from any Government spokesman—I hope that before we pass from the Amendment we shall have a reply—if to what extent have claims been either indicated or formulated which may fall within the scope of this Amendment?
5.0 p.m.
We are being asked by these three Clauses, which I understand from the Explanatory Memorandum are grouped together, to pass a Measure of indemnity. Before the House passes a Measure of indemnity, the only object of which can be to deprive rightful owners of their existing rights—there has never yet been a Measure of indemnity in this House which had not that for its object—we should know to what extent in the opinion of the Government are true owners of property being deprived or likely to be deprived of their rights.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that neutrals have always been able to bring claims in the High Court and, since 1951, German subjects have been able to bring claims. I should like to know what claims have either been formulated, or indicated, or pressed upon the custodian, or the competent authority. In other words, what is the extent of the indemnity

which the House of Commons is being asked to give by this Bill? I feel that it is the duty of hon. Members, before giving the Government any indemnity Measure, to curtail the provisions of the indemnity Measure to the limit which is strictly necessary to give effect to the motives of administrative convenience on which it is put forward.
I have heard nothing yet from the Government Front Bench which seems to make any argument for resisting the introduction into subsection (4) of Clause 3 the words of this Amendment, which are intended to qualify the indemnity provisions and to make sure that the indemnity does not extend beyond what is properly necessary for the requirements of the Bill. In seeking to refute the Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to subsection (5) of Clause 3, but there is nothing in that subsection which deals with subsection (4). The Parliamentary Secretary has said on more than one occasion that this is a highly technical Bill which is difficult to understand and I entirely agree. It seems to me that subsection (5) is merely a qualification of subsection (3).
I hope that we shall not pass from this Amendment without having some much clearer explanation than we have had so far as to why we should not limit subsection (4) of Clause 3 by the qualification suggested by the Amendment. That is to insert words after the word "control," to make quite clear that the subsection only applies if the property is dealt with in the circumstances of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 2 and that the property shall be recoverable from the competent authority to the same extent as it would have been recoverable from the transferee. In other words, we must try to preserve to the true owner of the property the rights he already has either against the custodian or against the transferee. That is the question to which I hope we shall have an answer before we conclude this debate.

Mr. H. Strauss: I think we are agreed on the complexity of this matter. There are three possible cases of what may have happened. One is that the custodian has sold the property and in that case the true owner has a right to the proceeds. In the second case he may have transferred to an administrator of enemy


property and in that case, under different legislation, there is a right against the administrator. There is the third case in which it has gone to another transferee and in that case I agree we have to look at subsection (5) to see what are the rights of the true owner.
In my submission that is right in an indemnity Measure and preserves the general intention of the Measure. The principles of Clause 1 give a necessary indemnity and not too much. At the moment, I cannot give information as to what claims may have been adumbrated or appeared in correspondence. I expect the hon. and learned Member is as familiar as anyone in the Committee with what has got as far as the Courts, but there are strong indications for believing that there cannot be many who feel themselves aggrieved and feel barred by this indemnity.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am very much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure that in this Bill we are all trying to arrive at a fair and just solution, but I am still in some difficulty, despite what he has said. I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a proper right of action against the administrator which obviously would meet the difficulty I have in mind and also, of course, the Bill meets the difficulty where there are proceeds of sale in the hands of the custodian.
But where there has been a sale of the property, and, therefore, there is no right of action by the true owner against the transferee, that right of action has gone by this Bill. The custodian has disposed of the proceeds of sale, not to the administrator but in some other way as in one of the categories of cases which the Parliamentary Secretary very fairly mentioned. He has sold the property, has received the proceeds of sale and disposed of the proceeds of sale. In that case there is no right of action against the custodian.
As I understand, there is, in these circumstances, no right of action against anybody. If that is correct, quite obviously there is here a possible injustice. There may well be cases in which a custodian has sold property the proceeds of which he has disposed of. If it is correct, as I understand it to be from my perusal of the Bill and the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary, that

that person, in those circumstances, has no remedy, I should have thought that there is obviously a lacuna here which the Government should look at.
I would ask, therefore, because this is no party Measure—there is no kind of party point involved; we all have the same object in mind, namely, the importance of getting the best Bill, fair to all parties, that we possibly can—that if I am right the Government should look at this point before the Report stage to see whether anything can be done to remedy that injustice.

Mr. H. Strauss: The hon. and learned Gentleman put his point most clearly. The fairest thing for me to say to him is, without for one moment indicating that there is any case here which we can meet, because I want to tell the hon. and learned Member quite frankly that I do not think there is, as there has been a great deal of careful examination of this Bill, that he has made a perfectly fair request that my hon. and learned Friend and I should look at this matter. We certainly will do so.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am very much obliged, and in view of that I do not wish to press the point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(INTERPETATION OF PART I AND PROVISIONS AS TO EVIDENCE.)

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The Amendments to this Clause in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) are consequential on matters already dealt with, and I do not propose to move them.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. William Teeling: On a point of order. What about Clause 4?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a Privilege Clause, and will be moved as a new Clause.

Clause 6.—(INFRINGEMENTS OF COPYRIGHT.)

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, in page 8, line 3, to leave out "the interest mentioned in that subsection," and to insert:
a German enemy interest.
If it is convenient to the Committee, perhaps we can at the same time consider the next Amendment in my name, in page 8, line 7.
The object of these two Amendments is simply to confine the operation of the subsections to what the man-in-the-street would regard as German enemy property. The Clause deals with infringements of copyright where such infringements have occurred and have been made on behalf of the Crown. They are dealt with as a separate category of infringement of copyright. Clause 6 deals with infringements of copyrights made by
a person acting in a good faith on behalf of the Crown,..
Subsection (2), with which my first Amendment deals, provides that in the case of that infringement of copyright on behalf of the Crown the relevant action shall, as against any person claiming in right of the interest, be deemed not to have bean any infringement of copyright.
In other words, if there is an infringement of copyright on behalf of the Crown it is not to be considered an infringement as against any person claiming any right to the interest mentioned in subsection (1). I wish to look at the words
any person claiming in right of the interest mentioned in that subsection.
That deals with infringement when at the time of the taking of the action, that is the making of the infringement in this case, there subsisted an interest which was a German enemy interest, or was properly treated as a German enemy interest.
In subsection (4) we get a definition of what property is treated as a German enemy interest. The words appear:
for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section an interest in the copyright in a work shall be deemed to have been properly treated by a person as a German enemy interest if, at the time when the relevant action was taken, the work or a copy thereof was in that person's possession or under his control in consequence of the removal of the work or a copy thereof from Germany:

5.15 p.m.
Subsection (2) deals with the abolition of action for infringement; Subsection (3) deals with the extinction of the copyright if the only interest in the copyright was an interest described in the subsection, in other words if that interest was not merely a purely German enemy interest. It is quite clear from this definition and subsection (4) that a copy of a work might come into a person's possession in consequence of its removal from Germany even though the copyright itself did not belong to a German at all, but even if it belonged to an ally or to a British soldier engaged in fighting the Germans.
What one would have expected here would have been the extinction of a copyright—abolition of action under subsection (2), extinction of the copyright under subsection (3)—to be confined to oases in which the only interest was a German enemy interest and not to include an interest which subsection (4) provides should be properly treated as a German enemy interest. Subsections (2) and (3) mean that allies and even British people may have their copyright in works extinguished. That seems to me to be the meaning of those subsections. If I am wrong in my analysis I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me.
My view is supported by the provisions when the Bill proceeds to deal with other parallel rights. If we turn to Clause 7 (1), we are now leaving the realms of infringement and extinction of copyright which results where there has been action on behalf of the Crown, and are dealing with cases in which action is not on behalf of the Crown. That subsection provides that an infringement of a patent shall be deemed not to be an infringement as against a German enemy or a successor in title. It is limited to that in exactly the same way as I wish that limitation to be applied to Clause 6 by my Amendment. I do not understand why this limitation to the German enemy or his successor in title in Clause 7 is not equally applicable to Clause 6.
I turn to Clause 8 (2), which limits abolition of payment for the use of a patent to cases where there is the use of a German enemy interest. Again, Clause 9 (1) limits the abolition of breach


of contract for disclosure to cases where the patentee was a German enemy.
I am puzzled that in the case of Clause 6, when it comes to a case of infringement of copyright and for the extinction of a copyright, we should have this provision which extends it beyond cases where the interest in the copyright is a German enemy interest.

Mr. Janner: In dealing with some previous Amendments I tried to emphasise the importance of not being unjust to people who are our own allies or nationals, and to take every precaution so that innocent victims should not be affected by any legislation we may pass. The shoulders of the custodian are in all cases much broader than those of the person who has a legitimate claim which can be established.
Our anxiety in this matter is the same as in some of the previous provisions. We do not feel that it would be either just or moral for any individual not an enemy alien to have imposed upon him anything which would prevent him from claiming his legal rights. That would seem to be the position here. I do not intend to repeat anything which has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), who expressed himself in very clear terms. But unless he and I are mistaken that seems to be the difficulty in this matter. It is the victimisation of a person who should be entitled to what are today his legal rights. In those circumstances, and if we are right, I hope that the necessary Amendments will be made to enable such a person to obtain his rights as they exist today.

The Attorney-General: I can best assist hon. Gentlemen opposite—although it may take a little longer—if I start at the beginning of this rather complicated matter. We are concerned here, in connection with this extinguishment of copyright, as I understand, very largely with the postwar user of certain material made available to the public by an intelligence organisation which operated in Germany, and with which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) is very familiar.
It may be difficult, in those circumstances, to show whether or not that

would have Crown authority after the war, and it would be very difficult to envisage a list of the possible postwar cases of infringement which might arise. Therefore, it was decided to go further and not only have a barring of the claims but the actual extinguishment of copyright in certain cases.
As I understand, under Clause 6 as drafted the result is to provide for what would otherwise be an infringing action during the war period; and persons acting on behalf of the Crown are not to be deemed to be capable of infringement in certain circumstances if, at the time of the infringing action, there was a copyright which was a genuine German enemy interest or properly treated as such.
The effect of the Amendment, if I understand it aright, is two-fold. First, it removes or raises the bar on infringement actions based on interests properly treated as German enemy interests, as apart from actual German enemy interests. The second effect is that it removes the provision as regards the date, and, therefore, leaves open to question whether the relevant date is that upon which the infringing action was taken, as it would be in subsection (1), or whether it is the date on which the claim for infringement was brought.
As regards barring the claim in respect of copyright where there was not an actual German interest, but the interest was properly so treated, it is obvious that at the time there was no means available for any close investigation into the ownership of the copyright. These documents were collected in large numbers and were required urgently. In addition, there was no register of copyright as in the case of patents and designs. As a result it would have been impossible to discover the ownership of the copyright in various manuscripts and other documents without prohibitive difficulties and delays.
Whereas under the Patents Act and the Registered Designs Act there is power for the Crown to use inventions and designs, subject to payment and compensation, and so on, there is no such provision in the Copyright Act which makes it a quite distinct problem. Therefore, such user of these copyright articles might constitute an infringement in respect of them, and heavy claims for damages might be made. I do not know of any such cases and I do not know


whether hon. Members opposite are aware of any, but quite obviously that might be the case.
This has a safeguard against the extinguishment of copyright in works in which there was clearly no German interest at all. There is a proviso in subsection (4) which governs the case where the interest was forfeited or affected in circumstances where there was no reasonable grounds for believing it was not a German enemy interest, and that goes a long way to deal with the sort of case which one can imagine might arise.
Regarding the question of date, it is surely out of the question that any change in the ownership of interest, anything which happens after the infringing action took place, should be permitted to have any effect on whether a claim in respect of infringement should or should not lie. That would open the door to possible action on the lines of the assignment of interest, or some kind of arrangement which would defeat the main object of the Clause, which is to put the German-owned copyright infringed during the war period in the public domain.
To do that, and to cover the work necessarily done, one has, in the view of the Government, to include also all the property which was properly treated as German enemy interest at the time, even though it was not an actual German interest. That is the scheme of it. I appreciate that it does not agree with the view of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner). We are dealing with indemnity. I have tried to explain the way in which the thing works.
In a few moments we are coming to paragraphs (a) and (b) which I do not think it is right for me to refer to now. But there again I think there is some slight misunderstanding between us, because there we provide for the case where there is a non-German interest which ought to be looked after. For example, in the case of a neutral owner or a non-enemy owner of a copyright and a German licensee, the copyright is not extinguished, the licence is extinguished.
It occurs to me that there may be some slight misunderstanding, because the next Amendment is designed to remove paragraph (b), which is designed for the very purpose which hon. Gentlemen opposite so clearly have in mind, to prevent the

non-German from being penalised. If there is a German interest then the copyright goes altogether, but if there is a non-German interest in the copyright then provision is made that it is only the licence and not the copyright that goes. That is the scheme. Whether we can agree on it is another matter.

5.30 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am grateful to the Attorney-General. I fully appreciate the force of what he says about the dates, but I should like to press the matter a little further because I am not fully satisfied with the reply. I appreciate what was said about the proviso to subsection (4) which says:
Provided that an interest shall not be deemed to have been so treated if the relevant action was taken in circumstances affording reasonable grounds for believing that the interest was not a German enemy interest.
I appreciate that limitation, but despite that proviso the interest which is properly treated as a German enemy interest may still be an interest which is owned by a neutral or by an ally or even by a British person.
There may be a case which is properly treated as a German enemy interest and there may be an allied or British-owned interest even though there were circumstances at the time which did not afford reasonable grounds for believing that the interest was not a German enemy interest. Therefore, although that proviso is helpful it does not go to the extent of covering the cases I have in mind.
The Attorney-General said there might be cases of neutrals, and so on, who would be outside the operation of subsection (3). That may be but, equally, there may be neutrals and even British persons who are caught within that subsection which says:
if at the time of the relevant action the interest mentioned in that subsection was the only interest subsisting in the copyright, the copyright shall be deemed to have been extinguished.
An interest is defined by subsection (4), which says that it is one where at the time when the relevant action was taken, the work or a copy thereof was in the infringer's possession or under his control in consequence of the removal of the work or a copy of the document from Germany. Obviously a person might have in his possession or control a copy


of a work from Germany even though the copyright in that work belonged to a neutral, an allied or a British person. Therefore, even though the interest belonged to a British person that interest is extinguished. However, I appreciate that in many cases my fears would be groundless. The answer of the Attorney-General would cover many of them. Nevertheless, there are some which are not covered by the answer, and that is what we are concerned about.
I go a stage further. I appreciate that in the cases of infringement of copyright an indemnity might well have to be given. I was very much persuaded on that by what the Attorney-General said, but I cannot understand why the extinction of the copyright should follow. If there is an infringement of the copyright done in prosecution of the law, and so on, by authority of the Crown, it might well be so; but I do not understand why there should be the extinction of a copyright. Even in cases where there is an infringement I do not understand why some compensation should not be paid to the owner of the copyright. Although we do not give a right of action against the person who acted on behalf of the Crown, nevertheless there should be some provision for compensating the person whose copyright has been infringed.
I ask the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to consider this matter a little further. It seems to us that there is a case and that there might well be an injustice. I appreciate what was said about patents. There is provision that the Crown can use the patents and pay compensation. A good deal of our complaint would go if there was a similar provision in this case, but the trouble is that there is no provision for a right of action or for compensation of any kind. If some parallel right of that kind could be provided which would meet the injustice which might arise, it would go very far towards meeting the difficulties we have in mind.

The Attorney-General: There are two sets of circumstances in view—where the material may be required for industrial purposes or where it may be required for historical purposes. There is undoubtedly a good reason for not wanting the copyright to

subsist. I agree that this is a matter which we must look into to see exactly how it works in the circumstances described by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). Of course, there is the proviso. One would have thought that that would go a very long way. If one thinks of it in reverse the case covered is one where the relevant action was taken in circumstances affording reasonable ground for believing that it was German enemy property. That will exclude a large number of cases. If it is possible to deal with a matter by way of compensation in a hard case that is something which we cannot really discuss on this Clause.
I cannot take the matter any further than that. It seems to me that a case that was not caught by the proviso might be rather difficult to justify for the time being. We will look into the question again but I cannot give any undertaking.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I would not ask for any binding undertaking in a question of this difficulty. I am glad to hear that the Attorney-General will examine it again. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(CROWN USE OF PATENTED INVENTIONS AND REGISTERED DESIGNS.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 13, at the end, to insert:
(5) Where in accordance with the said provisions a licensee would apart from this section be entitled to recover from a patentee or registered proprietor an amount representing a part of payments required under those provisions to be made by a Government department, and by reasons of subsection (2) of this section the claim of the patentee or registered proprietor to those payments is wholly or partly barred, then so far as the claim of the licensee is not itself barred by that subsection he shall be entitled to recover that amount as follows, that is to say,—

(a) if the claim of the patentee or registered proprietor is wholly barred, the licensee shall be entitled to recover that amount from the Government department in question;
(b) if the claim of the patentee or registered proprietor is partly barred, the right of the licensee to recover from him shall


abate accordingly and the licensee shall be entitled to recover the balance of the amount from the Government department.

As this is a matter concerned with the recovery of money from Government Departments it had to be left out of the Bill and dealt with as a matter of Privilege. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce it by this means. I think it can be explained very shortly. It is the kind of case in which there is a German patent, and a licence is granted to a non-alien and there is user of it by a Government Department. As I am informed, the normal course of business would be for the Department, under the Patents Act, 1949, Section 47 (4), to pay the owner of the patent, leaving the licensee to recover his share, or, in cases of dispute, what may be decided by the court.
Subsection (2) has entitled the former to claim, and it is obviously desirable that the non-enemy licensee should not be prejudiced. Subsection (5), therefore, will allow him to recover direct from the Department the sum which he would normally have recovered from the owner, who, in that case, would, in his turn, have recovered from the Department. It is a straightforward provision, which is designed to meet the very type of case which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, in which, otherwise, non-Germans might be penalised.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(PROPERTY ALLOCATED BY WAY OF REPARATION FROM GERMANY.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I should like to ask one or two questions on this Clause. Subsection (2) provides for cesser of interests in property allocated to any Government which was a party to the Paris Agreement on Reparations. Subsection (4) provides, with regard to property which was allocated to His late Majesty's Government, that it shall vest in the Crown. We have here two categories of cases; one, the general cases of allocation to an ally, and the case of

allocation to His late Majesty's Government in particular.
I should like to ask whether similar legislation has been passed in other countries where such property is situated. For example, I should like to be assured that the rights of Her Majesty's Government in that property in other countries are not thwarted by higher rights existing in that property. Is there any quid pro quo from other Governments for the kind of legislation which we are passing here in subsection (2)?
Secondly, what is the position in regard to property allocated to an allied Government but which subsequently comes to this country? Would this Clause extinguish all rights in that property before its allocation, or what is the effect of it? I must say that I find myself in some doubt and difficulty on the second point.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. and learned Gentleman exact information as to what is happening in other countries, but the general effect and purpose of this Clause is really a consequence of a reparations agreement. There was an agreement to set up the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency in the Paris Agreement of 1946 and this Clause is really consequential upon that Agreement; it simply carries it out and gives to it appropriate effect as far as we are concerned. Of course, we are dealing only with what is proper to be done by British legislation, and, whether other countries will legislate similarly is another matter. I am not perfectly certain that I completely understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, or whether, indeed, I could instantly give the answer, but if I might look into it and have a word with the hon. and learned Gentleman later, I should prefer to deal with it on those lines.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I should have considered it very unfair to raise this question on a Bill of this kind if I was merely doing so for the first time, but, in fact, these matters were mentioned elsewhere and no sufficient answer was given. I feel a certain doubt about them myself, and that is why I bring these matters up again here.
The second question which I raised was that of the case where, under the Paris Agreement on Reparations,


property had been allocated to an allied Government, and, subsequently, that property came to this country. Does this Bill operate in that case or not, or are there other Acts in existence in other countries which would affect that property in the same way as this Bill affects property here? I should like, at some stage, to know what the position is, but I do not press the hon. and learned Gentleman for an answer now.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(OTHER PROPERTY SEIZED FROM GERMANY.)

5.45 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, in page 13, line 43, to leave out from "time," to "imported," in line 45, and to insert "during the war period."
I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment that to line 45—after "Act," to insert "enemy property seized from Germany and."
Clause 11 is one about which I feel some difficulty. It provides that any property brought to the United Kingdom by a Government Department—or by the authority of a Government Department, in the words of the Clause—which is property seized from the Germans between the 3rd September, 1939, and the passing of this Act, it shall vest in the Crown. That, briefly, is the effect of the Clause. It seems to me that the property need not be actually seized from Germany itself. It need only be brought here under the vague phrase of "property seized from Germany." I do not know why that phrase is used. What does it really mean? What is the intention behind it? That is the first point.
Secondly, with regard to the date, the property may be seized even today. There is no war limit to the seizure at all, as I understand the Clause, the scope of which is unjustifiably wide. The third point is that, apparently, the property need not be enemy property at all. It may be the property of an ally or may have been the property of a British subject, because even that is covered by this Clause.
The object of the Amendments is to ensure that the property shall be limited to enemy property, and if, in fact, seized from Germany, it should be enemy property seized from Germany during the period when we were still at war with Germany. The war period is defined by a later Clause. Those are the purposes of the Amendments, and they concern matters on which I should be obliged if I could have some explanation. I realise that there may be some difficulty in finding the precise and exact explanation of all this, but I hope I have given the Parliamentary Secretary sufficient time to recover his position and be able to make his reply.

Mr. Janner: I also wish to ask one or two questions on this so that, if possible, we may have a fuller answer. It seems to me that the Amendment in line 43 is justified because in my view—I may be entirely wrong—seizures from Germany after the war period have not, in fact, taken place. If they have not taken place, would it not be contrary to international law and the policy adopted by this country towards the Federal German Republic?

The Attorney-General: I think I can help in regard to this matter. First, there is no need for any alarm in connection with line 46 on page 13. It is intended to mean only property seized from Germany, and it is probably desirable that that word should be substituted as it is not intended to widen the matter in any way.
As regards the other point, one has, I think, to approach it in the light that in this Bill we are validating action which took place during the war period, that is, up to July, 1951, when the war with Germany officially ended. In this particular case, however, it is necessary to go further for a special reason which I will explain.
Under the Military Government arrangement there was a requirement for the reporting of all foreign exchange to the authorities, and a decision was made that certain currency should be treated as German external assets. There was a complicated business with regard to that. The whole of that transaction was completed before that date except for the one final step. Everything but the final step


took place in the war period, and it is just a matter of extending the operation to cover cases where the importation into the United Kingdom was delayed until after the termination of the state of war. There was importation into this country which was not illegal, but which has to be provided for. The answer is that there we are only dealing with one special case, but that we must have the words in the Bill if we are to cover it.

Mr. Janner: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, but I am still a little doubtful—this being a kind of unilateral arrangement on our side—whether it is going to be acceptable in regard to the particular matters he has in mind to whatever other country may be concerned. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will have a look at that. Of course, I do not know what the example is and I could not go into it on the spur of the moment, but I think it worth while having a further look at the point.

The Attorney-General: We will certainly have a look at it.
If I may now deal with the other point about enemy property, the position there is that in a number of cases this property was seized from Germany and brought to this country in circumstances in which it would be impossible for anybody to know to whom it originally belonged. Therefore, as we are dealing with an indemnity Bill, that is the best way in which we consider we can deal with the matter, and I do not think one can carry it further than that.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman and appreciate the difficulties which face the Government in drafting an indemnity Bill for the purposes they have in mind. I agree that the purposes mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman are purposes which should be covered by Clause 11, but I cannot help feeling that the Clause is drafted in very wide terms. I am sure that as lawyers both the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary would wish to see the Clause as restricted in its application as is consistent with the objects they have in mind.
I find it difficult to believe that the Clause could not be drafted to achieve its purpose without the extraordinarily

wide scope given in its present form. While I appreciate the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations, and certainly agree with the objects he has in mind, all he has really said is that the criticisms made about the Clause as drafted are correct but that, unfortunately, it cannot achieve the necessary objects except by being drafted in this way.
It is most undesirable to have a Clause drafted in terms which cover cases which it would be unjust to cover in order merely to cover cases which it would be just to cover, but that is the defence put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am not saying that it is easy to draft a Bill limited severely to the objects which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. Knowing that these objects are right and proper, I cannot oppose this Clause nor press my Amendment, but I do suggest that the Clause should be re-examined with a view to seeing if it is really necessary to frame it quite so wide for the purpose of achieving these admittedly desirable objects.

The Attorney-General: I shall certainly be happy to consider that, but I wish to say that those who have been responsible for the drafting of this Bill have had a most appalling task. They have done their very best and have achieved a very remarkable result. Of course, if it were possible to simplify the Clause, we would be quite prepared to do so.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the observations he has made about this Bill and about the difficulties of drafting. However, I shall be obliged if, even at this late stage, he will see if anything can be done to restrict its scope. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(MEANING OF "GERMAN ENEMY" AND "GERMAN ENEMY INTEREST.")

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, in page 14, line 36, to leave out from "Germany," to the end of line 40.
I suggest that this Amendment and the one immediately following it in page 14,


line 43, might conveniently be taken together. I shall deal first with the scope of this Clause and then come to the Amendments which stand in the names of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner).
This Clause defines "German enemy" for the purpose of Part II of the Act. Part II provides that if a German enemy's copyright is infringed or brought into an allied country, then it is deemed to be extinguished. The second thing it does is that if a patent is infringed, then there is no right to a German interest in the patent. Thirdly, no person is entitled to payment for use by the Crown of the patent so long as the patent is the right of a German interest, and, fourthly, there can be no action for breach of contract for disclosing information about inventions on behalf of the person who is a German enemy. All of them were very drastic provisions, obviously all abolishing legal rights.
6.0 p.m.
We say that the abolition of legal rights should be limited to German enemies in the popular sense of that term and should not extend to neutral, Allied or British people by some artificial definition of "German enemy" beyond the ordinary man's understanding of what he means by "German." Therefore we approach the definition in Clause 12 wishing to limit in that way the drastic abolition of these legal rights.
Subsection (1, b) provides that the expression "German enemy" shall include:
an individual being a German national—

(i) resident in Germany or in enemy territory other than Germany, or
(ii) deemed for the time being to be an enemy for the purposes of the Act of 1939 by virtue of an order made under subsection (2) of section two of that Act."

Our amendment is a probing inquiry. What comes within subsection (1, b, ii), which we are moving to leave out by our Amendment? Does the Order referred to provide for specified individuals or specified categories, and what kinds of category and what kinds of individual? On what principle does this specific expression "German enemy" go? Who are included within it, and on what principle are the Orders made?
The second Amendment proposes to add words at the end of subsection (1, c), which provides that a "German enemy" shall include:
a body of persons, whether corporate or un-incorporate, being a body incorporated or constituted in, or under the laws of, Germany.
That could, for instance, mean a corporation or a company incorporated under German law in which all the holders of the shares were British. Nevertheless it would be a German enemy for the purposes of Part II of the Bill, and a patent owned by that company would be completely extinguished. We propose by the second Amendment that if that German company is controlled by an individual or by individuals of other than German nationality, if the controlling interest is non-German, that the company should be treated as non-German
I say at once what I mentioned on Second Reading, that I fully appreciate the difficulties of penetrating beyond the constitution of a company in order to ascertain the beneficial interests and acting in accordance with them, but the Government are hoist by their own petard. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will look at subsection (1, d) he will see that it says:
a body of persons, whether corporate, or un-incorporate, being a body controlled by the German State or by such an individual or body as is mentioned in either of the two last foregoing paragraphs"—
in other words, that it is controlled other than by a German national.
The Government themselves provide, for the purpose of including in the definition of "German enemy," control by a company which may be a non-German company not registered in Germany and not formed according to German law. They include in the definition of "German enemy" a company controlled by the German State or an individual who is a German. They themselves adopt the test of control of the company. What we are suggesting by the second Amendment is that the test of control of the company which the Government adopt in paragraph (d) for the purpose of including in the definition of "Germany enemy" should be adopted in paragraph (c) for the purpose of excluding from the definition of "German enemy."
I do not think that it lies in the mouth of the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that there is difficulty in penetrating


beyond the constitution of the company in order to find out where control lies when he himself, for his own purposes, has adopted that test in this very paragraph. I therefore follow the wording which he himself has adopted in paragraph (d), in the Amendment which I am proposing for paragraph (c). I hope therefore that I shall not meet with any difficulty about accepting my proposal on the ground that we cannot penetrate beyond the constitution of a company.

Mr. Janner: The point of the first Amendment has been expressed so lucidly and clearly by my hon. and learned Friend that I can hardly say anything without repetition of what he has said. This is a very important matter and I hope that the Attorney-General will listen to what my hon. and learned Friend has said.
Perhaps I may be allowed to put the matter in this way. A question of international law is involved and I would like to have an answer on one point. There are neutral nationals, and their inclusion would contravene a rule about confiscation of property without compensation belonging to foreign nations.
The same remarks apply on the second Amendment. I believe that the Attorney-General will agree that the question whether a body is being incorporated is often quite incidental. Allied and neutral nationals should not be punished for having invested money in a body which is incorporated or constituted under the laws of Germany. There was nothing before 1939 to prevent them from doing it. How will he prevent injustice from taking place if he does not accept the Amendments which we now propose?
I would put another point about which I have asked questions on a number of occasions and not yet had a reply. Has anything been passed by any other country before, making similar provisions to those in the Bill in regard to neutrals, allies, or their own citizens?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid that this is a matter on which I cannot be sympathetic because this is a case where we are dealing with a situation which arose during the war when, some time ago now, it was necessary to take a very strong line on matters of economic warfare. We have to remember that. If one were to accept the first

Amendment to line 36 the effect, first of all, would be to omit from the definition of "German enemy" those German nationals who were resident during the war in Spain, Portugal, South America and other neutral countries, some of whom were the worst people of all from this point of view. I understand that that is agreed, and that surely would be fatal.
There is no doubt at all about the effect of Clause 12 (1, b ii). The black list is dealt with there. Under Section 2 (2) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939,
The Board of Trade may by order direct that any person specified in the order shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be, while so specified, an enemy.
There is no doubt that those are individuals. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) is always very kind to everyone, but surely he is here being kind to people to whom we cannot afford to be kind.
In addition there was an agreement called the London Patents Accord which allowed patents owned by German residents outside Germany to be treated as non-German if certain provisions were complied with but the property of that class of German national is specifically included in the definition of German enemy property. The first Amendment, therefore, is something which we could not possibly be asked to accept.
On the second Amendment and the question of control, I ask again here for a realistic approach, because the effect of the Amendment would be to exclude from the definition of "German enemy" German constituted or incorporated bodies of persons controlled by non-Germans. When we realise what was going on in Germany during the war surely we cannot adopt that attitude. Some of the most undesirable people of all were in that kind of position. The owners of these firms who operated in Germany no doubt might be said to have objected to what they were doing, but in fact one had a German company operating during the war and owned by people in a neutral country. Surely we cannot have any sympathy with that.
The other proposal involved in the second Amendment is that British firms should be open to claims for infringement of copyright or patent where the


proprietors were a German firm simply because that German firm happened to be controlled by a neutral during the war. That would be the position. Information brought back by the B.I.O.S. from Germany was made available to British firms, and now if this Amendment were adopted a claim would be made against them by the German company for using the material. All that I can say is that I am very sorry but we do not consider that it is realistic to make this alteration.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The first Amendment was put down purely for the purpose of probing. I was anxious to verify that this provision was limited to the black list and to specific persons and was not made in accordance with some general principle of which perhaps the Committee might not wish to approve. My purpose in moving the first Amendment has been fully satisfied and I agree with the Attorney-General that it would be quite improper for us to press it.
6.15 p.m.
As to the second Amendment, I appreciate what the Attorney-General says, but it is not quite as simple as all that. I should appreciate his answer more fully if we were dealing here with the property of a German firm which was in Germany or somehow made available to Germans during the war or something of that kind, which of course we are not. In Part II of this Bill we are dealing with the abolition of legal rights for infringements of copyright of patents. We are dealing with abolishing those rights in cases where the control of a German company is even owned by a British subject.
Despite what the Attorney-General said I still feel some difficulty about that. His answer would be completely convincing if he were dealing merely with something during the war period only, with something which the Germans could have used during the war and which we did not, and if we were limiting our remedies under Part II of the Bill to actions then taken and not going on to deprive the true owners of patent rights and copyrights of any remedy of any kind whatsoever and abolishing the patent right altogether. That is the kind of consideration which we had in mind when we put down the Amendments to this Clause.
I hesitate to press this point because I appreciate that there are cases which ought to be covered and which would not be covered by it. I appreciate that cases which will have to be covered by indemnity and so on, as provided by Part II, would not be covered if the Amendment were carried. But again this is a case where the Bill goes further than is necessary for the true purpose which the Government have in mind and with which we agree. There is little time, unfortunately, between now and the Report stage to deal with these matters, but again I ask the Government whether they cannot look at this point again. I would not expect them to give as full consideration to this matter as to the first two matters which they have been good enough to undertake to examine with a view to incorporating in the Bill the objects which we have in mind. I will not press this Amendment. I think that it would be quite improper to do so, but I hope that the Government now appreciate what we have in mind and realise that it has not been met by the answer given.

Mr. H. Strauss: Whatever view may be held on the very complicated provisions which have been previously considered, I feel absolutely confident that it would be wrong for me to give the slightest hope on this definition Clause. These German-constituted or incorporated bodies of persons were enemies both at common law and under statute. The Committee should also remember the sort of circumstances under which the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee were acting, very much in the national and indeed world interest, in getting hold of some of the things of which the Germans had made the greatest use in the war. If they were not entitled to treat as the property of enemies what was the property of enemies by any legal definition I think that it would be really deplorable. I honestly believe that this definition Clause really must stand as it is and I am absolutely convinced that we should be unable to meet the requests which have been made from the benches opposite.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I only rise because I am afraid from the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary that he may not have fully appreciated the point


I have in mind. I appreciate, of course, that those who during the war have taken the actions to which he has referred must be protected against infringement and so on. There is nothing between us on that. The point I have in mind is this. Taking a 100 per cent. British controlled German company, incorporated according to German law, we have not merely an abolition of a right to sue for infringement but we have the patent extinguished, the copyright extinguished without any compensation or any provision of any kind for it. That is the difficulty.
I am hoping that when the Parliamentary Secretary considers the two points which he said he would look at closely, perhaps a good deal of my concern on this definition will be met. I hope that when he looks at the first two Amendments to which I spoke he will also have in mind this definition Clause. There may well be interaction between them, and I think that he may very well be able to frame any Amendment which he might wish to propose in such a way as will meet the objection which we have to the definition Clause.

Mr. H. Strauss: I would only ask the hon. and learned Member to have a look at the London Patents Accord and he will find that what has been done here is in accordance with it.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move in page 15, line 3, to leave out from "enemy," to the end of line 5.
This Amendment raises a short point which again was dealt with elsewhere, which the Government said they would consider but on which there has been no answer. "German enemy interest" is defined in the Bill as including an interest which belongs to or is held on behalf of two or more persons of whom any one was then a German enemy.
The point is that there might be an interest which is owned jointly by, say, 20 people—one can take any number one likes—of whom one is a German enemy, not in the popular sense of "a German enemy" but a German enemy within this very much wider definition which we have

in Clause 12, and yet because just one of those persons is a German enemy the whole of that interest is extinguished. The whole of that interest in the copyright and in the patent is extinguished without any remedy at all.
Therefore, if one of 20 people happens to be a German enemy within the wide definition of this Clause, and has an interest in the copyright, that copyright is completely extinguished without any remedy at all for any of the other 19, even though all the other 19 are British subjects. It seems to us that that is going unnecessarily far. This is a matter which the Government said they would consider, and I should like to know what their explanation is for insisting upon the inclusion of this definition.

Mr. H. Strauss: Of course, co-ownership always does involve difficulties. The hon. and learned Gentleman took a case where the enemy interest was extremely small, but of course the enemy interest might be very big. In any event, we have to consider other matters as well. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it is not always very easy to tell without litigation whether one is infringing a patent. It is not always absolutely clear. One gets complicated cases. During the war a manufacturer may have unwittingly infringed a patent. Is he to be liable to be sued merely because there is one non-German co-owner? I think it is quite impracticable.
In so far as the question now put by the hon. and learned Gentleman is bound up with the question at an earlier stage which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said he would consider, of course it will be considered, but my view at present is that the whole of this definition Clause would stand whatever our conclusion on those other subjects. I am only telling the hon. and learned Gentleman my view at the moment, but I need hardly say that all undertakings given on the part of the Bill specifically dealt with by the Attorney-General will, of course, be carried out.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I entirely agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary said about infringement actions. I did not, in fact, specifically refer to those. The difficulty which I feel is on the abolition of copyright and the abolition of the right in the patent. What I


fail to appreciate is why, instead of abolishing all rights in the interests in the copyright and in the patent, one could not simply abolish the rights of the German enemies in the interest. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has that point in mind.
I am not suggesting that it is desirable that the German enemy should have an interest which survives. I am not suggesting that a person who quite properly has infringed the patent should not have indemnity. The difficulty which I feel is confined to the case where there is joint ownership and interest, where a German enemy is one of the joint owners, and British and allied people are joint owners. Why could not we limit the extinction of the interest to the interest of the German enemy, and no extinguish the interests of all the other joint owners who are not German enemies? It is to that point that I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to reply.

Mr. Strauss: I will certainly consider that point. What we have in mind at the moment is present and, no doubt, future use in the public interest of some of the information rightly obtained by us during the war.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I would agree with that. That may be very desirable, and there may be very good reasons why that should be so. But if that is so, and if that is the reason, obviously there should be compensation for the non-German enemy joint owners. That is my concern. I am not concerned in any way to cut down the effect of this Bill in so far as it is in the public interest. What I am concerned about is that if it is in the public interest to do anything under this Bill it should not be done so far as British allied and neutral people are concerned without giving them proper compensation. The Conservative Government are here proposing nationalisation without compensation. We propose that compensation provisions should be inserted, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15.—(INTERPRETATION.)

6.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 17, line 9, to leave out "include," and to insert:
and to a Minister of the Crown include respectively.
This and the following Amendment, in line 10, raise no point of principle. They are required simply to deal with the technical point that the term "Minister of the Crown," which is used in Clause 9 of the Bill, is not appropriate in so far as the Bill extends to Northern Ireland, where the correct expression is "Minister of Northern Ireland." It is consequently necessary to amend the Interpretation Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 10, at end, insert "and (in relation to a department of that Government) to a Minister of Northern Ireland."—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 17, line 20, at the end, to insert:
and as including references to the provisions set out in the Second Schedule to the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953 (which by section two of that Act were substituted for those Regulations).
This Amendment deals with a small technical point. Since the Bill was introduced the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, has become law. That Act embodied in permanent legislation the substance of the Defence (Trading with the Enemy) Regulations, while, at the same time, repealing the Regulations themselves. That is what gives rise to the necessity for this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16, 17 and 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(INCOME FROM MONEYS INVESTED BY CUSTODIAN.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any income received by a custodian from the investment of moneys coming into his hands (whether in pursuance of the Act of 1939 or otherwise) in his capacity as custodian, being income received by way of discount on the purchase by him of Treasury Bills or by way of interest on other loans made by him to the Treasury or on moneys placed by him in


his name on deposit or current account at a bank, shall belong to the Crown and be paid into the Exchequer.

(2) The last foregoing subsection shall be deemed to have had effect as from the coming into operation of the Trading with the Enemy (Custodian) Order, 1939, so however, that it shall not be construed as authorising or requiring the repayment of any sums paid by a custodian before the passing of this Act otherwise than into the Exchequer.

(3) Where a custodian, whether after or before the passing of this Act, pays or has paid to any person a capital sum on the footing that—

(a) it represents or represented money which was paid to the custodian as being money due to an enemy, but which was not in fact money due to an enemy, or
(b) it represents or represented the proceeds of property which was transferred to the custodian as being enemy property, but which was not in fact enemy property,

the person to whom the capital sum is or was paid shall be entitled to receive from the custodian interest thereon at the rate of three-quarters of one per cent. per annum from the date on which the custodian received the money referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection or the proceeds referred to in paragraph (b) thereof, as the case may be, to the date of payment of the capital sum:

Provided that—

(i) where the payment of the capital sum was made before the passing of this Act, the right to interest thereon under this subsection shall not arise unless a claim for it in writing is made to the custodian within one year from the date of the passing of this Act and there is produced to the custodian such evidence in support of the claim as the custodian may reasonably require; and
(ii) where in such a case the person to whom the capital sum was paid has since died, or any other event has occurred whereby the right to the interest, if vested in him immediately before that event, would thereupon have vested in some other person, the right to claim the interest shall be treated as having devolved as if that right had been vested in him immediately before his death or immediately before that event, as the case may be, and, if the right is duly exercised, the interest shall be paid to the persons claiming under him accordingly.

(4) For the purpose of making payments of interest under the last foregoing subsection a custodian who at the passing of this Act has in his hands, or thereafter receives, any income such as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall set aside out of that income such sums as the Treasury may from time to time direct; and out of any sums so set aside the custodian shall pay any interest becoming payable by him under the last foregoing subsection and shall pay the balance thereof (if any) into the Exchequer.

(5) In this section the expression "money due to an enemy" means money which would, but for the existence of a state of war, have

been payable to or for the benefit of a person who was an enemy within the meaning of the Act of 1939.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is technically a new Clause though it is printed in the Bill as Clause 4. This matter has been dealt with in Second Reading and on other occasions. The Clause seeks to make it entirely clear that the interest received by the Custodian, whether by discount on Treasury Bills or otherwise, belongs to the Crown

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(SAVING FOR ALLIES.)

It shall be the duty of the Board of Trade to give the direction mentioned in subsection (6) of section one of the Distribution of German Enemy Property Act, 1949, in favour of the person who would have been entitled to the property or proceeds therein mentioned if the definition of enemy property within the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, had excluded property for the time being belonging to or held or managed on behalf of or controlled directly or indirectly by an individual or body of persons (whether corporate or un-incorporate) who possessed the nationality of a State allied with His late Majesty or who was a member of any Allied or Associated Forces within the Allied Forces Act, 1940.—[Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Board of Trade, under the Distribution of German Enemy Property Act, have a discretionary right to distribute property to persons whom they are satisfied are entitled to the property. By this Clause we suggest that where the Board of Trade are satisfied that a person is entitled to the property and is a national of a State allied with his late Majesty—in other words, was an ally during the war or a member of the Allied Forces during the war; for instance a Pole serving here with the Polish forces—the Board of Trade should be under an obligation to let him have his property back. That is the effect of our proposal, in very rough terms.
We fail to see why, in those two cases, which seem to us to be very right and proper, and deserving cases, the Board of Trade should not be under an obligation


to give a direction that such property, in the hands of the Custodian, should be handed back. I hope that we shall have a reasonably sympathetic view from the Government on this question.

Mr. Janner: I should like to reinforce what my hon. and learned Friend has said. Here we are asking for something which ought to be given without any question. All we ask is that Allied nationals or members of Allied and associated forces should have a legal right not to be treated as enemies. If, as at present, they are confined to mere ex gratia proceedings, they are placed in an humiliating position which, in the view of my hon. and learned Friend and myself, should be avoided. In our view they should have access to the courts of law and be able to enjoy the full protection of our law and the administration of justice. This Clause should commend itself particularly to the Government and they should have no hesitation in accepting it.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am not sure whether this new Clause quite carries out the intention in the mind of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), because it proposes the amendment of Section 1 (6) of the Distribution of German Enemy Property Act, 1949. That means that here we are concerned only with German enemy property and this is really another plea for looking behind the constitution of a company to see who are the beneficial owners. That question has already been dealt with on a previous Amendment, but I would say generally to the hon. and learned Member that the question really is whether it is appropriate that this should be mandatory.
I do not think it can be mandatory, because nationality in itself would be a wholly insufficient test. That is why I have no doubt that the Government of which he was a distinguished Member—though I cannot recall whether he was a Law Officer at the time—legislated in the way they did, and not in the way which the hon. and learned Member now wishes. If there were merit in the idea behind this new Clause—which, for the reasons I have given, there is not—the time to have given effect to it would have been in 1949, and it is now hopelessly late.
It would hold up any amount of matters which are now proceeding smoothly, and would be ineffective in certain cases where action had already been completed. If the hon. and learned Member will look into the matter he will see that he is really proposing the amendment, not of this Bill, but of an earlier Act. I do not think it would have been right at any time, and it is certainly too late now.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: What I hoped was that we should get from the hon. and learned Gentleman some statement about the undertaking in the kind of case mentioned in the Amendment. Some of his criticisms of this Amendment were fully justified, as I appreciate. This is a case where it is extremely difficult to frame a Clause which would have a mandatory effect. I agree with him there. If this matter could be dealt with in a satisfactory way by an undertaking which would preserve the discretion of the Minister, then it would clearly be the more flexible and better way to deal with it.
This matter arose on Second Reading, and the Minister gave an undertaking, but his undertaking was limited in an extremely narrow form and what we were anxious to have was an undertaking that would be somewhat less limited than the one which he gave. The Government were pressed on Second Reading and elsewhere to consider that undertaking and not to have it drawn in such an extremely careful and narrow form as it was drawn both elsewhere and here. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can add something which would give us the assurance that all the cases we have in mind—and he knows the cases we have in mind: the case of the ally, of people fighting with us during the war—would be covered by the discretion which the Board of Trade already have. That was the object of putting down the Amendment.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was not inadvertently confusing two things. He so seldom confuses anything that I make that suggestion with the greatest hesitation, but I think he has slightly confused the discretionary use of this power in the Statute referred to in the Amendment with the quite distinct undertaking about ex gratia payments made by my right


hon. Friend. I am afraid I cannot give the hon. and learned Gentleman any information at the moment about the working of the power in the Statute, but I think the intention has been to use it in every proper case. As for the quite different considered statement made in both Houses on ex gratia payments, I am afraid I have no authority to alter the wording.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

AUXILIARY FORCES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

Committee tomorrow.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Oakshott.]

SMALLHOLDINGS

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I welcome the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to raise a matter which is rather lost sight of in some of the discussions we constantly have about the agricultural industry. I refer to the question of smallholdings, as established under Part IV of the Agriculture Act, 1947. During the long Recess matters to do with agriculture, with marketing and with the whole future of the industry have been much discussed throughout the country. People are interested about the way in which prices and markets are to be assured to farmers, large and small. From some of the conversations which one has heard one might have wondered whether anybody wanted to get into the agricultural industry at the present time.
In fact, there are many men—young men and, I think, wise men—who are looking to agriculture for their future and

who want to play their part in producing food for this country. I believe that home produced food will be required in large quantities, indeed, the maximum quantities, as far as we can see into the future.
These people who want to get into the farming business—and there are large numbers of them—are finding very great difficulty at present in getting land on which to carry out their farming. I stress this to the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I am sure, will agree with me: this problem of entry of young men into the farming industry as farmers, or rather as smallholders, because the problem of providing capital to start in a big way is a very serious and limiting factor in these days, has to be considered in connection with the loss of men from the land which we so much deplore.
Men have been leaving the land at the rate of about 10,000 a year, and although many factors enter into this problem I believe that one of the main factors is that those who work on the land in one capacity or another think that the prospect of ever getting a holding of their own is receding and that they had better look to some other industry where there is more prospect of their starting in business on their own.
I do not want any hon. Member to think this is merely a question of providing a few holdings for a few people who happen to have ambitions in that direction. I think it is very much tied up with the whole prosperity and future of the industry. We must be sure that young men who have the enterprise and ability to start up on their own are enabled to do so, as far as possible.
As I have said, it is very difficult for them to get into the industry except through a smallholding, a small place, and in the past their main entry has been through the county council smallholdings. This movement has been going on for many years and I believe it has settled down into a very useful, desirable and, on the whole, efficient part of the county council's work.
I feel that the smallholdings movement has settled down. Indeed, one of the troubles is that it has settled down rather too much. It has settled down to the point at which no new holdings, or virtually no new holdings, have been created


since the war. I have heard doubts expressed about the smallholdings movement. I have heard people say that a farm bought by the county council and split up into smallholdings does not produce as much as it would in a single unit. As in all businesses and at all levels of the agricultural industry, there are undoubtedly differences in the levels of production between one holding and another, but production on many smallholdings that I know in my constituency in South-West Norfolk is at a very high level.
I believe that there are in this movement possibilities of encouraging family farming, which, after all, has been so extraordinarily successful in other countries, particularly in Denmark, to which we often look for agricultural example. I think that that allegation is not a true one. There are, at any rate, in the movement possibilities not of decreased production but of increased production.
Undoubtedly, in the early stages of creating smallholdings there were mistakes made. There were, first of all, mistakes with regard to the selection of people to go on smallholdings. Very largely they were regarded as means of settling men on the land whether they had had past experience of the land or not. There may have been justification at that particular time for that particular policy, but it did lead to a considerable number of disappointments on the smallholdings. They have been disposed of today because the applicants waiting for the smallholdings have been "vetted"—though, perhaps, that is not the right word to use for these applicants—and lists have been compiled and only men of agricultural experience are allowed to remain on the lists. They are people from within the industry who are wanting the smallholdings and are on the lists today. There have been very few holdings created in the last few years.
I would now pay a tribute to the men on the committees. They are not halfhearted in their work at all. They genuinely believe in the place the smallholdings have in the farming community, and are trying their hardest to make the movement a success and to make sure that existing holdings have the sort of equipment they ought to have. They have done some excellent work in re-equipping their estates, and I shall give a figure or

two in a moment to illustrate what has been done in that direction, particularly in the improvement of buildings, in Norfolk especially, and it is hoped that improved buildings on the estates will make it more possible for livestock to be kept and intensive farming to be carried out.
All that may not mean much to the man who has not got a holding at all. It may not encourage him to know that the men who have got holdings are to have better buildings, better houses, desirable though those things are. We come back to the question of providing more. The difficulties which lie in the way of those who would provide more smallholdings, the county councils smallholdings committees, are, I think, fairly well known. In the first place, there is the difficulty created by the fact that there is less movement of smallholdings tenants from off the estates into larger farms, perhaps privately owned, or, perhaps, farms which they buy themselves.
There are many people farming today, some in quite a big way of business, who started out on a county council smallholding. They got started in that way. Perhaps, they got a part-time smallholding, then got a full-time one, and eventually hired money and bought land and got out on their own, and in that process released holdings for others. That is exactly what the smallholdings movement should really be doing. I do not regard it as a method of permanently settling men on the land, to stay on the holdings which are let to them originally. I regard it as a rung in the ladder, a means of moving on to other and bigger holdings. Today, that it a very difficult thing for them to do.
The reasons why it has become difficult are also fairly well known. They are partly connected with the fact that the agricultural industry as a whole is prosperous, as it should be, and people who are in holdings are loth to move out of them. They are also in part due to the steps which have been taken in this House to provide existing tenants with increased security of tenure. I am not going to debate the rights or wrongs of that tonight, only to say that undoubtedly increased security of tenure has tended, as, indeed, it was proposed that it should, to consolidate people in their holdings, and there are less available to


others to move into. So there are very few opportunities for tenants on the smallholdings estates who would very dearly like to move into another place to do so.
The third difficulty is the high cost of land at the present time. This operates in two directions. It bears on the point I have just been trying to make. It is very hard for the county council smallholding tenant to get away on to a bigger holding because he cannot afford to buy one. Also, of course, it is hampering the smallholdings committees themselves in procuring land for this purpose. In my own county the smallholdings committee has been very assiduous in looking out for likely land. I shall give the House a figure of the amount of land they have looked at and what in fact they have been able to procure.
A question I should like to address to the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter is: what is the Government's view about the future of this scheme? Do they believe that it will be possible to obtain smallholdings more easily in the future? I should have thought it was very doubtful. Surely, we do not want to wait until that time arrives—for my part I hope it will not arrive—when land values fall, because at that particular time there may not be so many people wanting to go into smallholdings.
I am dealing only with a hypothetical possibility, because for my part, as I have already said, I think the agricultural industry has an assured future before it because of the economic circumstances in which this country is placed. I do not think myself that we ought to be absolutely deterred from moving in this matter of the smallholdings by the high value of land, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something about the intentions of the Government with regard to that particular factor in the situation.
A further difficulty which is facing the smallholdings committees is the rate of interest which they have to pay on the loans which they have to take up to buy smallholdings. This factor, combined with the high price which has to be paid, is liable to make the whole proposition impossible financially. We all know the reason why interest rates are relatively high. The reason is that the Chancellor had to adopt this method as one of the

essential parts of his policy of reviving and restoring the finances of this country, and we know that by and large that policy has had very beneficial effects. However, the Chancellor has always recognised that this question of interest rates is a matter subject to change, and he has taken the step of reducing the rate, and I believe this reduced rate of interest now becomes applicable to loans taken up by smallholdings authorities for the purchase of land. I should be very grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could assure us that that is the case, and that smallholdings committees will now have a reduction, if only a slight one, in the charges which they have to pay on their loans. These are some of the difficulties which pose themselves before smallholdings authorities. I have run over them so that my hon. Friend may have an opportunity of giving the House his view on how the difficulties may be overcome.
I should like now to give a short account of the position as it is at the moment, first with regard to the national position of smallholdings and then with regard to the position in my own county. On 9th July, the Minister of Agriculture answered a Question about the creation of smallholdings, and said that in 1952–53 he had approved proposals for the creation of 42 smallholdings and for the addition of land to 35 existing smallholdings. I am sure that the House will agree that these figures are very small indeed.
There is this to be said about the position. I must say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that such numbers as have been made have been made very recently, and I hope that my hon. Friend can assure us that there are more schemes in the offing which he hopes to approve, and which make these figures better than the rather miserable ones which we had for last year. There were 239 schemes for improving existing holdings, some of them at £250 a piece, and of these 212 were approved during the year. That is the position with regard to the improvement of holdings, and it is a much more satisfactory one than the position with regard to the creation of new ones.
To turn from the national figures—those for England and Wales—to those concerning Norfolk, I should like, first of all, to put the picture into perspective by


saying that in that county the smallholdings estate amounts to over 31,000 acres. That is a very considerable figure, and I believe it is throughout a thriving and very useful contribution to the county's welfare. There are on the list of the County Council's smallholdings committee at the moment no fewer than 403 applicants who want a total of nearly 10,000 acres of land. Over the past five years, the rate of settlement of people on these holdings has amounted to only about 30 per annum, so it is very clear that some of those men, at the existing rate at which things are going, will have to wait a very long time.
The bulk of those who have gone on to the smallholdings have gone one to holdings vacated by someone else; they have not gone on to new holdings because the amount of the land acquired since the war in Norfolk for smallholding purposes amounts to 244 acres, and I believe that that was acquired very recently. That is the position so far as Norfolk is concerned, and I do not think any of us interested in the smallholdings movement can regard it as satisfactory.
There is one sideline to this matter about which I should like to ask my hon. Friend a question, and that is whether other Government Departments or semi-Government Departments which have land in hand and land which they let are making any contribution to the smallholdings movement. I was thinking particularly of the Commissioners of Crown Lands who have big estates up and down the country, and I do not see any reason why that land, which is already in the hands of the Government, could not, through the local smallholdings committees if necessary, be made available for the creation of smallholdings.
There are other bodies which hold land, but I do not think that they could make suitable land available for smallholdings—and there is no doubt that the land must be suitable for the purpose. I am thinking of a body like the Agricultural Land Commission. I imagine that the bulk of their land is of a character which would not be suitable for smallholding purposes. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could enlighten me as to whether these bodies

do, in fact, make any contribution in this way.
The other particular point on which I should like an answer relates to the tests imposed for the sanctioning of new smallholdings schemes. I believe that it is a fact that smallholdings committees find it difficult to satisfy the financial tests required by the Ministry. They cannot buy land, equip it and generally prepare it for smallholdings purposes and come within the financial limits allowed to them by the Ministry of Agriculture. Has it a ceiling on the value of land? Is that the test which is applied or is it a question of letting the land at an economic rent? In other words, is the proposition worked back from the rent which a likely tenant is able to pay or is an absolute ceiling placed on the value of the land?
It may be that the Ministry are applying too stringent tests in this direction. I believe that many prospective tenants, although they would, naturally, like to pay as little rent as possible, would be prepared to pay quite a considerable rent for useful land in order to be able to make a start upon it. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would enlighten me as to the nature of these tests.
One of the big costs in the establishment of smallholdings is the cost of equipping. In my constituency, and, indeed, throughout the whole Fenland area, there are a great number of part-time holdings which have very little equipment. The land is suitable for intensive cultivation—some of it for market gardening purposes—and the amount of equipment in the way of buildings is not very great. Holdings which have to be equipped for full-time operation need quite elaborate equipment in the way of buildings and perhaps the erection of new houses. I wonder whether our standards have become unnecessarily expensive. I, personally, do not want to see the job done on the cheap, but it is a fact that a great number of people who are in the farming business today would not be there if they had insisted before they started that everything should be in absolute apple-pie order.
I wonder whether there has come to be too much insistence on the standards laid down by the Ministry for the creation of new holdings. I hope that on the type of land I have mentioned the


part-time smallholder will not be done out of business. At the beginning of this Parliament, the Minister was good enough to say that he had revised the then existing regulations on this point and that he did not propose to call on the smallholdings authorities to consolidate all their holdings into full-time ones. In other words, he was not going to take away the land from one part-time holder and give it to another to make the second one a full-time holder. I never agreed that that policy was good and I was delighted when the Minister changed his decision. However, I should like to be assured that the standards which are being insisted upon are reasonable. At all events, it is more important to get on with the provision of holdings, subject to limitations, of course, than it is to be sure that everyone is equipped up to the knocker.
I believe that the rate at which we are creating smallholdings at present is too slow. I do not imagine that there ought to be a sort of wholesale creation of smallholdings and a wholesale programme for settling people on the land in those holdings. It is not a movement of that kind for which I am asking. I am asking—I hope my hon. Friend will give us assurances about it—that we should attempt to get away from the present relative stalemate so that the vast lists of people waiting to get on the land may be reduced and so that we may bring into the industry the fresh and vigorous blood that we need, which, as I have said, I believe to be a vital factor in retaining men in the agricultural industry.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but the observations of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) have so commended themselves to me that I thought I should indicate my support for them.
One of the most unfortunate features of post-war agriculture has been the absence of anything like the transition that we had pre-war from the position of a farm worker to that of a smallholder and then to that of a farmer in a substantial way. If we are to have a really healthy structure in the industry, not only from the point of view of production but also from a social point of view,

it is essential for us to do all we can to make it far easier than it is at the moment to have those transitional stages from one function in the industry to another.
Apart from county council schemes, before the war, in my area in particular, it was a common feature to find a man commencing his life in the agricultural industry as a farm worker, and then finding himself a smallholder after a relatively short time, and perhaps ultimately finding himself a farmer with a substantial holding. At the moment, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West has indicated, there is a complete stalemate. I doubt whether, certainly in this century, there has ever been a period when it has been more difficult for a farm worker to become a smallholder or a farmer. There are obvious reasons for this. One of the difficulties arises by reason of the 1947 Act, which I will not develop, and others are the high price of land itself and the fact that there is no moving up from smallholdings to farms.
I should like to see the Government take positive action to stimulate further interest in smallholdings on the part of county councils. I can endorse the views expressed by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West about some of the difficulties experienced by the county councils. It is true that the Minister has to maintain standards, but from some cases which have come to my notice I believe that in giving or refusing his approval to schemes he has been rather too stringent in his requirements about buildings, roads and equipment as a whole.
The result has been that the county councils have been faced with the need to spend far more money than they had anticipated and to demand a rent rather higher than would be normal for a holding of that kind. That is particularly so when, quite apart from county council smallholding schemes, there are a number of smallholdings outside those schemes. Because of that stringency, we find that the county councils are in a position to offer smallholdings only at rents far higher than those for comparable smallholdings outside the county council schemes.
I do not want the Minister to reduce his standards to too low a level, but he should be a little more tolerant of the


difficulties of the county councils in this situation and should relax, to some extent at least, his requirements in respect of buildings, equipment, roads and matters of that kind. If the movement could really get going again, I believe we should find that interest in the creation of smallholdings by county councils, the Forestry Commission, the Agricultural Land Commission and the Land Settlement Association and in other ways, would soon return to what it was pre-war. If we do not do that, we shall be strengthening the hands of those who argue for some form of nationalisation of the agricultural industry. The great argument of many of those who advocate it is that new entrants into the industry who have not much capital at their disposal will never find themselves in a position to hold land in their own right and farm it according to their own aspirations.
I should welcome a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary indicating that the Ministry will do more than is done at the moment to encourage the county councils in particular to revive their interest in the establishment of smallholdings and to make it easier for them to carry out their efforts in that direction.

7.18 p.m.

Colonel Ralph Clarke: I fully support the principle of smallholdings, which, I believe, emphasises more than anything else does the Conservative principle aiming at a nation of small property owners. It seems to be one of the ideal directions in which that policy can be practised.
At the same time, we must bear in mind that, from the strictly economic point of view of producing the utmost from the land, it is doubtful whether smallholdings are the best and most proficient way of doing it; that is, with certain exceptions, where, for example, smallholders are able to obtain some assistance from the fact of their being commoners and being able to graze some of their cattle on hills and common land, thus really increasing the size of their holdings.
However, if one is aiming at the maximum production from the land, I am afraid that one cannot hope to achieve it by means of smallholdings. That has

been shown all through Europe. It is being shown today in Germany where estates have been broken up into smaller holdings and the result has been a reduction in total production. If one looks back over agricultural history one finds that at the times when there was a demand for maximum production from the land, as during the Napoleonic wars, smallholdings, or what corresponded to them in those days—men who had a few acres on the common field and grazing rights on the waste of the manor, and so on—tended to disappear and to be replaced by larger farms.
It is a hard life, too, and also a very responsible one. I remember a very fine old man in the village coming to my father years ago and asking him to buy his little holding, which consisted of about 10 or 15 acres. My father asked him why he wanted to get rid of it, for the man seemed to be prosperous and happy there with his family. The man said, "I am sick of poverty. It is not so much that I am not all right from day to day, but I never know how long I can go on. I have nothing behind me. I should like to be a paid employee on an estate, with some security." He afterwards become a wood reeve and was an extraordinarily good man at his job.
Quite apart from the point of view of the maximum production of land, there are two directions in which smallholdings can be of the very greatest value. The first is the question of promotion, and the second is part-time smallholdings. With regard to promotion, I think we are all agreed that in the past one of the most unfortunate features has been that so often a young man has gone into the industry, has soon got the maximum agricultural wage and from then has found that there is very little prospect of his ever increasing it. If he had gone into some other industry he could in time have risen to be a foreman or even a small owner.
In agriculture there has been a tendency for a man to start at 19 or 20, soon reach the maximum wage, and do the same work and get the same wage until retiring. We want to get rid of that. It was not always the case. Between the wars, when the agricultural wage was far lower than it is today, there were agricultural workers I knew who, somehow, had been thrifty enough to save a certain amount of money. They had good wives


and probably their families helped them. Anyway, by some means or other they saved enough to start in a smallholding of their own, and very good tenant farmers they made. That, however, was the exception, and we want to see more of that type of man.
Smallholdings today provide that rung on the ladder. With the higher wages paid now it should be possible to save more, and there are a number of ways in which a man can borrow money now which he could not do before the war. There is more opportunity, and I think that the most valuable thing that smallholdings do is give the opportunity for a man to start on the lowest rung of the farming ladder. The corollary to that is that we must bear in mind that one must not think of a smallholding as the ideal or as being a sort of life work. It should only be for a certain number of years, and every man on a smallholding should look upon it as a step on the way to a bigger farm.
The second way in which there can be very considerable help is part-time holdings for men who are not really necessary on the land throughout the whole year. On a stock farm a man has a seven day week for 52 weeks in the year, but on arable land there are long periods when a farmer does not want the assistance of a labourer and does not want to pay high wages. It would suit him better if he had not to keep that labourer during those slack times. In the old days work was found for such a worker, but often today it cannot be afforded.
If such a labourer had a holding he could work himself during those periods or which could be worked by his wife or family it would create for farmers a certain amount of labour which they could call on and which otherwise would not be available. In that way a reservoir of labour would be provided, and would supply a great need in agriculture today.
From the point of view of the capital equipment position, smallholdings are generally uneconomic, and that applies whether it is a landlord or a county council who have to find the capital. I had an example brought to my attention only this morning of two smallholdings of 25 to 30 acres which were next to each other. One was changing hands, and the man in the adjoining holding offered a rent considerably

higher than was being paid or had been offered for the other one in order to get it and put it into his farm. That tendency has been going on all the time, and it appeals to the landlord because he can make one lot of buildings do for the two holdings, especially in these days when he is being called upon to bring his cow stalls up to attested standard. If he is able to concentrate on one lot of buildings instead of two, it is to his advantage. In this case I am glad to say that both holdings will continue, but we cannot get away from the point of view that for the landlord they involve greater expense.
There are a number of different kinds of tenure of smallholdings. There are the ordinary tenants who rent on an agricultural estate and are under the usual tenancy agreements. Then there are the owner-occupiers. I think perhaps that is almost the ideal thing though it may make them inclined to remain longer in the holding than they should. It is not quite so easy to make up one's mind to sell one's home as it is to give up a lease when one feels one wants a bigger place. But I feel that where there is an owner there is a tremendous incentive to improvement.
A few years ago the Parliamentary Secretary and I were on a deputation to Northern Ireland. There, the present system of land tenure consists almost entirely of owner-occupiers, who are buying their holdings under a long-term system which started when the landlords were compensated for their land 30 to 50 years ago. I think my hon. Friend will agree that we were both struck by the high standard in the building, and the pride that these owner-occupiers took in their holdings.
Then there is the system under the county council. I agree that it is not increasing the holdings very fast, but they do generally involve a breaking up of existing agricultural holdings and that, naturally, is a decision that it is not easy to take, especially when maximum production is being sought and when it is recognised that that maximum production for a certain number of years will be hindered. Sometimes there are opportunities when an airfield comes on to the market for sale and that can be developed as a farm. That is probably the best way of doing it.
Then, again, I think that the county council smallholdings committees who actually choose their own tenants have to be careful that the men they select are what I might term long-term agriculturists, and that they are not people taking the holding to get a home or a house and after a few years give it up when they get another house. The lists want to be most carefully scrutinised. In one direction the county council smallholdings have an advantage over others in that generally they are in groups, and in that way the tenants find it easier to co-operate with each other than is the case if they are isolated and scattered over a wide area of country.
I am quite certain that in all agriculture we must try to be more co-operative. I do not mean by that an elaborate cooperative society such as is found in Denmark. I think they are very good, but we in England, less perhaps than in Scotland, do not find it so easy to co-operate on a systematic basis. There is a great scope for the sharing of implements and the working of the different smallholdings by concentrating first on one and then on another in the growing of crops and in getting the land fit for work. That sort of thing can be done if there is a grouping of these holdings instead of them being scattered.
I suppose the real ideal in this direction is what is done under the land settlement scheme. That, however, is a specialised branch. They go in for high-grade horticultural land rather than the ordinary everyday traditional methods in agriculture. I repeat that a good deal could be done with more co-operation and it might make up for the fact that their expenses are greater through the holdings being smaller.
Other smallholdings that are rightly increasing are those of the Forestry Commission. These fulfil the function to which I referred in regard to the arable districts, in that they provide work for part of the year for men who are not necessary in the forests all through the year.
I feel that smallholdings are of great value but that at this time, when the need is for the maximum production, they should not be over-emphasised. Otherwise, we shall fail in our long-term aim of increased production. At the same time, there is room for more of them in

order to increase the scope of promotion up the agricultural ladder, and also to add to the pool of labour available at certain months of the year throughout the industry.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I welcome the opportunity of taking part in this debate. I certainly had not expected to have this privilege, and I would have preferred it if my hon. Friend had put a wider aspect of agriculture before us because I would have liked to plunge into the full scope of agricultural policy. I think it is fair to say that the future of smallholders, as much as the future of farmers generally, is closely bound up with the proposals on the marketing system which we hope the Government will give us in the near future. There has been a certain amount of anxiety in the farming community, amongst the smallholders as much as others, on these most important matters, and though I can assure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the ardent support of hon. Members on this side of the House on the steps the Government are taking, that support will be even more ardent if we can get the decisions in the near future.
At one time I was a member of the smallholdings committee of my own local authority, and I was fairly closely connected with the running of smallholdings in my home area. I was always struck by the fact of how well these estates are run and at such little expense to the national Exchequer. It is not widely recognised just how efficiently they are run. That, however, applies entirely to the existing estates. When one envisages the creation of new estates, which was the reason why my hon. Friend raised this issue tonight, one is immediately faced with serious costs, particularly when it comes to equipping an estate.
In that connection it is reasonable to think of the provision of bare land holdings, particularly for part-time smallholdings. It was the policy of the previous Government to discourage part-time holdings and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has reversed that policy to some extent. I believe he has left the initiative with the local authorities, which is obviously the place where it should lie. Nevertheless, there is room for still more part-time holdings. I have always held


the view that a farm worker who wants to get on should be encouraged to take the first step on the ladder, which is to have a few acres to work and to find out for himself the difficulty of the responsibility for marketing the produce from those few acres. I believe that to be a valuable education. If a man serves an apprenticeship in that form, he is far better fitted to take over a full-time holding later.
With regard to full-time holdings, it might be possible to provide some bare land holdings in the first place because many people who would like to have a full-time holding are already housed in the vicinity and could well run such a holding from their existing house. I support strongly what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard), that it is unnecessary to put up buildings on a lavish scale for housing stock if it means that by so doing the holding becomes uneconomic. I would prefer holdings with the minimum number of buildings than to have an elaborate scheme worked out and then to be told that it cannot be done because it is too expensive. If an ordinary tenant farmer can put up temporary buildings in the form of bales of straw to house some of his pigs, why cannot a smallholder do it? Let us be more realistic in our approach to these problems. Here, as in other matters, there is an advantage in cutting one's coat according to one's cloth.
I can remember one scheme in my own county where a farm was purchased and split into five holdings. The buildings were admirable but the cost was astronomical and unjustified. Cost is possibly the greatest deterrent factor, although I believe that shortage of land is also a difficulty at the moment. If we are to make progress in providing a considerable number of new holdings, we must realise that it is better to provide part-time holdings than none at all. I have been on the selection committee of one of the county councils and have seen some would-be applicants. They are good men, to whom one would like to give a holding, but we are unable to do so.
From the point of view of the availability of land it is relevant to consider the debates we have had in this House in the last 12 months over the loss of agricultural land. One of the tragedies we have to face is that so much of the

good land at present under Government requisition would be eminently suitable for smallholdings. In many cases such land is becoming derelict, and therefore I urge that this aspect of the problem should be considered.
It is a most difficult problem, but I know of large numbers of applicants who are longing to "have a go" on their own, and many of them would make first-class farmers. I hope that real action will be taken to get more of these smallholders and to get them on an economic basis—not to be too lavish with them, otherwise the Treasury will see that we cannot have any large number. I say, therefore, that we should be modest in our outlook and that we should produce the most simple type of holding that we can, and that when a farm is split up we should not endeavour to provide lavish sets of buildings for every tenant that we seek to accommodate.
In many cases it would not be necessary in the first instance to provide a house on the holding. I do not say it is not right and proper that a house should be on the holding, but it is not necessary to do it right away. That can come later, after we have the tenants working on the farm. If we could do it in that way, I believe that we could go ahead and get a considerable number of further holdings in the not too distant future. I support every word spoken by my hon. Friend in this short debate and I repeat the wish that we could have debated far wider issues in this valuable time.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams: We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) for raising this subject. I am particularly pleased because I have always been interested in the lot of the smallholder. Generally speaking, I think that all farmers today are holding their own and doing fairly well, but those who are doing best are either the big mechanised farms or the smallholding that is run by the family. If those two are doing the best, the more we can encourage the small, family holding the better the country will be provided with her agricultural produce.
There is no doubt that anyone farming his own land will put a little more into it than if he has to pay to have it farmed by somebody else who is working for a


salary or wage and who does not benefit unless there is a bonus of some sort according to the results achieved by the holding. Therefore, the more people we can get running their own pieces of land, the more their hearts will be in their work and the better results we shall get.
I do not altogether agree with my own Member of Parliament, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), when he said that smallholdings are not the most productive use of land. Of course, they vary very much according to the circumstances—the part of the country in which they are situated, whether they are adjoining common land, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggested was a good place for them, or whether they are run by such a society as the Land Settlement Association. Certainly, Denmark, which is the home of the smallholding, has achieved what are probably the finest agricultural results from any part of the world.
Conditions in this country are not so very far removed from those of Denmark, and I feel that if the smallholdings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has said, are not too elaborately equipped, we should be able to make them a thoroughly paying proposition. Indeed, the Land Settlement Association have had extraordinarily good results. Their work is based on co-operative lines. As a rule, all the fertilisers are brought by the society or association concerned and are dealt out to their members and in the same way seeds are distributed; and usually they have an efficient marketing scheme for all the members of the society. That has worked extremely well, and I hope that before the end of the debate somebody will be able to quote production figures of the Land Settlement Association compared with some of the larger holdings.
This subject has been raised at a very appropriate time. If we are to have smallholdings, we must have good people to farm them. The lists of people at present requiring holdings are very long and, in consequence, those who have to select tenants for the holdings can be extremely selective. They ought out of those long lists to find the really admirable men or women who can run a smallholding profitably and to the advantage of the country. It must be remembered

that every ton of farm produce that is produced at home saves our buying a ton from abroad. In many cases it saves dollars or valuable sterling, and the more that the smallholdings can be encouraged to produce by intensive farming, the better off the country will be.
I should like to see houses built on these holdings, because the more a man is part and parcel of his holding the more his heart is in it. When we talk about a property-owning democracy, there is no doubt that we get better results when living on our land or next to it and when we can work in comfort for ourselves. That, however, is not the first consideration, but now that houses are going up very much quicker and easier I feel that the time is not far off when we can again build houses on these smallholdings.
Several hon. Members have spoken of smallholdings as an excellent ladder or stepping stone to a man becoming a large farmer after beginning, perhaps, in humble origin as an agricultural labourer. I should like to add one or two rungs to the bottom of that ladder in the way of allotments. After all, allotments must surely be permitted within the scope of this debate, because they are smallholdings, and we must, if possible, get people interested in the land and in growing and producing things, which is the best hobby that one can have, by encouraging allotments.
But all is not well in the allotment world. There is not the security of tenure that there should be. People who have sunk money in allotments suddenly find that the council want the land for housing or some other reason. Allotment holders are not getting the agricultural advice which they should have. They used to get it from the National Advisory Service, but now they are palmed off on to the education authorities. That is one of the things which must be put right to encourage people to become allotment holders and then smallholders, and, perhaps, eventually, big farmers.
On allotments nowadays it is possible, subject to the consent of the local council, to keep livestock. This means not only rabbits, hens and bees, but, in many cases, pigs as well. That is a wonderful stepping stone to smallholdings. I hope, therefore, that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary considers the


whole subject of doing more for smallholdings, he will not forget that allotments are a very useful stepping stone to a smallholding, just as a smallholding is a stepping stone to a larger farm.
I was delighted to hear one of my hon. Friends suggest that some of the land at present farmed by the Government might usefully be divided up into smallholdings. Every year I study the Report of the Land Commission, which, I regret to say, is never published until 15 months after their year is ended; I have been trying for some time to get it speeded up. When those results eventually come out, they invariably show a loss on land which has been farmed by the Land Commission. Surely, rather than the taxpayer having to pay that loss, it would be better to divide the land into smallholdings and to have them efficiently farmed and producing on an intensive system.
If the smallholders we are trying to encourage are short of money, I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture could consider special loans to them to enable them to buy stock. I know there are ways of getting loans from banks and various agricultural organisations, but it is not always so easy as it seems. Perhaps the Minister might consider some way of making loans to these people in order to give them a chance to build what they want and to buy more livestock for their holdings.
Some years ago I was rather averse to part-time holdings but only for one reason—we were getting rather unsatisfactory results from them. Now I think the position is better because there are long lists of people wanting part-time holdings and a good man can be selected for the job, a man who will put his heart into it. If such a man is selected we shall have voluntary effort and possibly he will do overtime on the smallholding as he is doing another job during the day. We sometimes have men working in offices who are able to farm their land at night in the summer or in a slack period.
That would not only help such people, but also will produce more food whilst giving smallholders healthy relaxation and recreation on the land. We have to remember that for every ton they produce we are helped in our efforts to save dollars and the spending of sterling abroad. This, of course, must be subject to good farming and will have to fall in

with the provisions of the 1947 Agriculture Act. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture will take great care to see that that is done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham suggested that he would like to say a few words about the agriculture policy of the Government as a whole. I feel that he could not have been at Margate last week as, there, the Prime Minister assured us categorically that the policy of the Government is to go on with guaranteed prices and assured markets. The Minister of Agriculture made it quite clear that he had introduced a scheme for cereals—with which I think everyone is contented—for beet, for potatoes, and a temporary scheme for eggs, which is working fairly well at present. Now he is also in negotiation for a suitable scheme for meat for everyone.
Anyone setting up in a smallholding now should feel confident of the backing and guarantees not only of the Minister of Agriculture but of the Prime Minister, as declared in the last few months. Now is the time to set up these people in smallholdings. I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West.

7.54 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard), who is my constituent and neighbour, for having raised this subject tonight. Some hon. Members may remember that just over three years ago I did the same thing. The story my hon. Friend has told tonight shows that there has been very little improvement since that date, but it does show one improvement, which I think is important, and that is that a few more holdings have been provided since this Government came into power. But what a pittance it is when compared with all the promises made at the time of the passing of the 1947 Act.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick), who preceded my hon. Friend as Parliamentary Secretary, said when that Measure was being debated that 5,000 new holdings would be provided within five years of the Bill becoming an Act. At that time hon. Members opposite, who were supporting him, criticised him for limiting the figure to that extent


and said it was outrageous that the limit should be 5,000. They implied that the sky was the limit for the number of new holdings, but we all know what happened. Very few new holdings were provided and, what was worse, a certain body called the Smallholdings Advisory Council recommended to the late Administration that the policy to be followed over smallholdings should be to combine existing part-time holdings and make them full-time holdings, gradually eliminating part-time holdings altogether. One thing for which I was grateful to the Minister of Agriculture was that as soon as he came into office he decided to alter that ruling. I thought that from that moment onwards we should see the part-time holdings policy continue unabated.
I had a particular reason for that hope because in my constituency there are about 1,500 holdings run by the county council and of those slightly under 200 are full-time, all the remainder being part-time holdings. The application list in the past has never been anything like satisfied. The policy followed by the previous Government of trying to combine part-time holdings and make them full-time holdings seemed to me quite crazy, because the demand was for part-time holdings and the supply of part-time holdings was quite inadequate to meet that demand. It seemed to me playing to a theory worked out as suitable for certain other countries and trying to impose it on an area where part-time holdings are not only wanted badly by many people but have also shown themselves thoroughly satisfactory in the contribution they have been able to make in the general production of food for the country.
I have been a little concerned recently as a result of going round my constituency to learn that apparently the Ministry are still asking county councils to make full-time holdings of part-time holdings. That policy has been continued to a lesser degree than in some other counties in the Isle of Ely where the demand for part-time holdings is still as great as it was, if not greater. I should like my hon. Friend to tell us the policy of the Government in regard to this matter. I regard this as contradictory to what the Minister was able to say to the farmers when he came to

Cambridge soon after he took office. I sincerely hope there has been no recantation by him of that very firm pledge he gave, which was to the effect that he hoped county councils would be given a little more credit for knowing what was desirable in their own areas than the previous Administration had been prepared to accept. I hope we can have that matter cleared up.
There is another aspect of this problem. In the old days when a full-time holding became vacant it was the custom for a notice to be put on the holding saying that it was due for letting in due course and, as a result, people applied for it. Now—I suppose as a result of another piece of advice from the Smallholdings Advisory Council—the Ministry say that that must not happen and the only case in which the holding can be advertised on the holding itself is when it is a part-time holding but they must be considerably reduced. Letting of full-time holdings must be decided behind closed doors, apparently without applicants being able to come forward to be dealt with in strict rotation. This is giving rise to suspicion that all is not fair, and I think my hon. Friend should know of this. I have heard it mentioned several times over the last few weeks by applicants who have been disappointed and they are getting the impression that letting is not fair.
I should be the last to accuse the Smallholdings Committee of the Isle of Ely county council of being unfair in their lettings. I have gone to considerable trouble from time to time to make sure that it is fair. It is only natural that when an ex-Service man from an agricultural family comes out of the Forces and wants a smallholding he feels very bitter when he cannot get one. I am sure that in general the members of the committee do their best to try to be as fair as they possibly can be. They have no easy job.
Not everybody has realised that with the passing of the Agriculture Act, 1947, there was a great change of policy in that matter. Up to that time it had been a social movement rather than an agricultural one. It had been a kind of sop in some cases to ex-Service men, in particular those who came out of the Forces after the First World War. The policy


was changed in 1947 and the scheme became definitely a part of the agricultural ladder of promotion.
The requirement now is that a man must have agricultural experience. If there are two men with equal experience and resources to make a go of it the ex-Service man usually gets priority. That is as it should be. That is the rule. The moment that we start giving rise to the suspicion that something is being done, rather in the dark, round the corner somewhere, suspicion is started up about every smallholdings committee among the disappointed. I am afraid that is human nature. It is very important that we do not make the position more difficult.
I wish to ask my hon. Friend about the Smallholdings Advisory Council. It was set up by the former Administration and it certainly contained two supporters of the then Government. I am not one of those who believe that because a person becomes a Member of this House he should therefore not be entitled to serve on a committee which is advising a Minister. It would be quite wrong if membership of the House debarred one from doing that. What I am saying is that it is quite wrong that if Members of Parliament are on a body of that kind they should be selected from one side of the House. If there is to be any representation at all from this House on the Smallholdings Advisory Council we ought to have representation from both sides, certainly when such an important matter as this is involved where a policy which was originally put into operation by a Minister who was supported in this House by Members of the Advisory Council is being altered by another Minister, or we are asking for trouble.
It would be very much better if the Advisory Council could be at least evenly balanced. I believe that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary takes part in the Council's deliberations, probably in the capacity of Chairman. If that be so, I suggest to him that it is only fair to both sides of the House that there should be proper representation if there is to be political representation, and that if it is proper representation it must be as broad as possible, representing all points of view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) touched on a subject which has considerable relevance to this debate. The hon Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) is very ready, whenever he can, to quote, as an example of the incompetence of British farmers, how wonderful the Danish are. In fact, I think that Denmark is the only country where he is able to discover the figures which are advantageous to his argument. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge drew attention to the fact that one of the reasons for that is that so many of the farmers in Denmark are smallholders.
I would not merely be uncertain as to whether I would agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), I would cross swords with him on his contention that smallholders are apt to be inefficient. I would say that today full-time and part-time smallholders in the Isle of Ely are extremely efficient. I have never heard a complaint made by the county council, by the National Farmers' Union or by the county agricultural executive committee. If smallholding is done properly it can be done very well.
Indeed it is an interesting reflection on some of the problems which now confront countries on the other side of the iron curtain that we in this country have virtually completely destroyed what used to be our peasantry. I am not suggesting that the status of a peasant exists in this country today but I should like to suggest that the economics of peasant farming still show themselves in our own agricultural economy in so far only as our smallholdings are concerned. There is no doubt that it is one of the most economical forms of production there is if it was done properly, as it is.
The Government should make up their minds whether the policy really ought to be one of bringing the industrial organisation from the big cities on to the farms or not. There is a tendency towards it. I have no objection to the National Union of Agricultural Workers; my own foreman is a member of his branch, and I am glad that he is, but I feel that there are limits which ought to be set on this movement if only to ensure that we still keep alive the chance for those who want it to produce as best they can from land on which they live and which they own, without employing additional labour.
That is the crux of the whole issue, whether or not agriculture is to consist of employed labour as opposed to owners or occupiers of the land doing the work entirely themselves on their own holdings. I feel that we have gone quite far enough along the road towards abolishing the smallholder who does his job as best he may on his own holding and sometimes works very long hours indeed and produces far more cheaply than do the big farms. We have gone far enough along the road towards destroying the smallholder's chances.
I heartily welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West has said tonight. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will tonight be able to give us some indication of the Government's real intention about leaving the county council smallholdings committees to manage their own affairs in so far as he possibly can. The provision of the Act which I ask him to be particularly careful about is Section 50 (4), which gives the Ministry permission—not direction—to direct
that the authority shall alter the size or lay-out of the smallholdings in such manner as may be specified in the direction.
I believe that the operation of that provision has done more harm in my county than any other because the use of that section enabled the Minister of the previous Administration to say to the county council, "You must now begin closing down part-time holdings and amalgamating them to make full-time holdings," by that reducing the number of smallholdings every year. That has been the result of the then Minister's policy when the number of applicants tends to increase and when we want them to increase if we want them to use the ladder of promotion in agriculture. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us the present Minister meant what he said when soon after taking office that it was for county councils to run their counties as they thought best and that he would not make this overriding direction from Whitehall operate so unfairly as it had done up to then.
This has been a useful debate because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge said, there are many alarms being put into people's minds in the agricultural industry today. I would say that

there is an exercise going on in Bedford Square which is the finest example of demagogy which I have ever witnessed. It is trading on men's fears when those fears may be quite groundless.
There are few better ways in which the Minister can show that he really has faith in his own policy, as we have, than by showing the agricultural workers that the Minister means to make it easier for them to start up the ladder of promotion, and that he intends to stand by them not merely by giving them facilities to get land but by ensuring that when they have got it prices will be such that they can prosper and eventually become farmers in their own right. I believe that is what we want to see, and what we ought to be moving towards rather faster than we are.

8.11 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: My intervention in the debate will be very brief. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) who opened it has done a public service in calling attention to some extremely important things. It is very rarely that I find myself in complete agreement with every speech that has been made from the Government Benches, except for some of the more peculiar terms in which hon. Members have attempted to deal with the mystery of the relations, the cordial and good relations, that exist between the farming community and the present Government on this agricultural policy.
On the matter with which we are dealing, the importance of smallholdings, all my smallholding friends assure me that a smallholding is the most intensely cultivated form of agriculture in the country. In my county of Hampshire we have quite a vast number of successful and hardworking smallholders. Even though the economic merits of a smallholding as opposed to the merits of other kinds of farm may be questionable, to me the smallholding is, above all things, the only way in which the agricultural worker can become a master man and move from being an agricultural worker under someone else towards taking a farm for himself.
Farms are tremendously expensive to buy. We are training young men for agriculture in agricultural colleges. We


want them to feel that in the agricultural industry, as in any other, there is a ladder for the humblest man to get to the topmost position. The smallholding can provide for young, ambitious, able potential farmers the kind of career that we want to see for them.
I intervene only for one reason. I am a member of the Hampshire County Council. We have a very hardworking Smallholding Committee, trying to carry out the 1947 Act, to which the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has paid such a moving tribute tonight. Again and again the committee finds itself unable to cope with the problem of meeting the demands of Hampshire folk for smallholdings. We have a long waiting list of keen, able people willing to take smallholdings if we can find them. In the last few weeks we have acquired an estate which we hope to turn into five or six smallholdings, and it is a matter of some excitement, and of feelings of triumph among the smallholdings committee, that they will be able to report to the county council a matter that will cause great satisfaction.
When we have debated this matter again and again during the past three years in the county council, the debates have been depressing. The Smallholdings Committee had patterned for itself a five or 10-year programme in which it hoped to acquire steadily year by year thousands of acres of land for smallholdings, but it has failed each year to get anything like within grasp or reach of that number.
Anything that the Government can do should be done—this matter of smallholdings is certainly not a party issue—to help smallholdings committees in acquiring land, or doing so at something like reasonable prices, or resisting if necessary the tendency for the big farmer to snap up available land and merge it with his already big farm, or helping to finance smallholdings committees who find that if they acquire land and make even the minimum provision for smallholders the economic rent is likely to be very high. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he is aware of the importance and the seriousness of these problems. I assure him that my own county is typical. Our smallholdings committee has endeavoured to carry out the 1947 Act, quite conscious

of the great number of difficulties that had to be faced.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I shall delay the House only for a few minutes on this subject, for the raising of which the whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend. I would refer to three points.
The first is that made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) about the part-time holding. I think the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) will agree that this is of enormous benefit, primarily because at the moment the task of setting up smallholdings is fantastically high, something like £150 per acre. Some smallholdings cost as much as £7,500 to set up. Of course, the rent to the occupier will be high, and the returns disastrously low to the tenant in the other. Perhaps if more could be done by encouraging county smallholding committees to go in for smallholdings on a part-time basis, many of the problems could be overcome.
Some of the more grandiose plans put forward by those committees might be overhauled. The person who is going up the farming ladder wants to get down to the job of farming his bit of land and making a success of it. Committees sometimes design buildings of great architectural merit, but put in frills that are perhaps unnecessary. Cuts might possibly be made on that side of the programme in order to reduce the total investment. These are real problems on which the Minister might be able to give committees guidance.
The only other point is of grants being extended to smallholdings other than those held by the county council. I believe that the only grants available go to county council smallholdings. If other persons with smallholdings could be assisted it would benefit the agricultural community, and especially the man who wants to get his foot on the bottom rung, so to speak. That is another matter which might be considered. I think that everyone is convinced of the economic and social importance of these smallholding schemes and I hope that the Minister will be able to give some


satisfaction to the almost unanimous expression of feeling in this House.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. P. Bartley: I am sorry that I was unable to be present to hear the early part of this debate, but I agree with those hon. Members whom I have heard that its subject is very important. I am very much in favour of increasing the number of smallholdings anywhere in the country. I want to deal with an aspect of this subject which I believe has not been mentioned in the debate so far. It is the question of the extent to which the Ministry have effective control or supervision in the counties. One hon. Member opposite favours leaving to the county smallholdings committees the complete management of these holdings, but I believe that there is need for much closer interest in and even supervision of these holdings by the Ministry.
In that part of the country in which I am interested these smallholdings were established before the Second World War and were primarily designed to deal with the widespread unemployment at that time. In recent years, fortunately, there has not been that widespread unemployment. Those who became tenants of these holdings in my area and who are now employed in the local pits or in other industries still struggle to carry on with a smallholding on a part-time basis.
My experience is that that does not appear to be working out wholly satisfactorily. That is no fault of the tenants. Many of them are keen to make a success of their holdings but, because of the change in circumstances, full use is not being made of the land. I am inclined to think that supervision by the local officers—I am not speaking of members of the committee or of the tenants—is not sufficiently close to encourage or to ensure full use being made of the holdings. The holdings are generally of about seven acres and, obviously, that is not sufficient to provide a livelihood. The tenants need help and encouragement from time to time.
I have put Questions in the House about holdings in my county, and so has my hon. Friend the Member for Sedge-field (Mr. Slater). We are much concerned about a number of points which affect smallholdings in County Durham. I suggest that there ought to be more

effective supervision or control by the Ministry and that the Minister should not depend wholly on officers of county level to ensure that full use is made of county smallholdings. It has been mentioned in this debate that the cultivation of a smallholding is one way by which one can become a farmer. It would be interesting to know how many tenants in County Durham eventually became farmers. I have known of many disappointed applicants for farms from among smallholders. They have not been given the opportunity. Other influences are at work and there has not been the encouragement for smallholders to become farmers that ought to exist in that part of the country.
One way in which direct supervision could be helpful is in relation to the provision of equipment for these holdings. I know of tenants who are anxious to increase their stock and who apply for additional equipment, but who have not been encouraged. This has been the case even where there have been units of equipment available because they were not being fully used on neighbouring holdings where the tenants were also occupied in the pits or in some other industry. Even in those circumstances the county people have not been able to assist tenants who are anxious to increase their stock by providing them with piggeries and similar equipment.
Despite the fact that there is still a big demand for smallholdings very little has been done in recent years to increase the amount of land that could be broken down into holdings. I suggested on one occasion in a supplementary question that as one means of increasing the amount of land which could be used for smallholdings the Ministry should consider reclaiming some of the land which has been affected by coalmining subsidence in Durham. I have found from conversations with people who occupy smallholdings in my county that here are some holdings which do not produce more than 50 per cent. of their capacity.
Some months ago I even asked the Minister to conduct an inquiry into the administration of smallholdings in County Durham. Something more effective needs to be done to ensure that full use is being made of smallholdings and to ensure that more tenants are given greater help and encouragement when they ask for it to increase their stock, enlarge the range of


their equipment and improve the productivity of their land. Although this is an Adjournment debate I hope that something will be done to follow up the points which have been put by hon. Members to the Minister in this very valuable discussion.

Colonel Clarke: Will the hon. Member tell the House whether the county executive committee in County Durham exercise any supervision over the smallholdings? Do the smallholdings committee of the county council, for example, not have the advantage of the advice of the county agricultural advisory service?

Mr. Bartley: We have county agricultural officers and a county smallholdings committee, but I am suggesting that their supervision has not been sufficiently effective. I have suggested on previous occasions in Questions in the House that the Minister and his officers should come into this matter to ensure even greater supervision and encouragement.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Bartley) suggest that in his area, which is an industrial area such as mine is in Sheffield, where they have the problem of subsidence, some of the derelict areas which are usually used for empty tins and old bedsteads might be turned into smallholdings. I think that that was a good idea which might commend itself to the Minister. Whether or not it would be practicable to drain these areas, most of which are very damp and boggy, I do not know; I leave that problem to those who are more experienced than I.
I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I wish to put forward, first of all, the claim of the smallholder or allotment holder in a big industrial city. We have not heard very much about him in the debate this evening, but I believe that his need, and the use which many people in Sheffield are making of their allotments, should be brought to the attention of the House. In my constituency we have a certain amount of land which is laid out for allotments, some of it by the city council, and I must say that those which are so laid out are well run; usually, water is provided, and the people who are working

them are doing a useful and productive job.
There are, however, some other areas, particularly in Heeley, where the landlord is now the Railway Executive. I do not know whether the Minister can help by giving advice to that body. In the past these allotments were well used and productive. However, since nationalisation and the Railway Executive took over these allotments, one of the first things they did was to increase the rent, not by 50 per cent. or 100 per cent., but in some cases by over 200 per cent. Not only that. They do not even provide water on these allotments.
I admit that this is a matter between the allotment holders and the Railway Executive. I have taken the matter up with the Chairman, without very much success, and I am wondering whether the Minister could help us by having a word himself or asking some of his officials to have a word with those responsible in the Railway Executive, to see whether they can be persuaded to take a more sympathetic attitude towards people who are using allotments on railway embankments and elsewhere in industrial cities so that more use is made of this land.
I wish to turn to another aspect of the subject, relating to the agricultural areas, and particularly in Norfolk, where I have a farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Southwest (Mr. Bullard). I should like to say how much the work which he does in that constituency is appreciated by his constituents. We have various village allotments which are worked part-time. They are mainly worked in shifts—corn or roots, as the case may be—not in the intensive way which some hon. Members have been discussing, but more as adjuncts to farming activities, by people who have not got farms. They need encouragement just as much as the full-time farmer does.
One thing which distresses me is that in the new White Paper on grain deficiency payments this type of man seems to be left out. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can assist us on this point, but, so far as I understand, no deficiency payment is payable to a man who has less than one acre of barley or oats as the case may be. Why is that? This is the type of man who borrows a horse in the evening and ploughs a plot of, say, half


an acre and grows sugar beet on it; he works the sugar beet himself and his family probably go out during the weekends to help him. He may then put it under corn; but, whereas the big farmer on the other side of the hedge, with many hundreds of acres, will be able to claim payment from the Government at the end of the harvest period, the small man who has raised his crop of corn himself on half an acre will not get any assistance at all from Her Majesty's Government. I may be wrong in this; I hope I am, but I have read the White Paper fairly carefully. If that is so it is something which should be looked into.
It may be that the Minister will say, "Well, my officials are very busy. It would take a great deal of book work to find out who has half an acre or more. Those people on the agricultural committees have a great deal to do. I am very sorry, but we cannot really ask them to be burdened with the administrative work which it would entail." That may be his answer. If so, I still suggest that he might ask his officials to look at this matter again and to see whether something could be done at any rate to give that amount of assistance to this sort of people as is given to the larger farmer over the hedge.
Now I want to widen the scope of this debate a little. There is a point which is important in discussing this White Paper on grain and the question of deficiency payments. The scheme of the Government, which I support wholeheartedly, has brought a great deal of confidence to the grain growing farmers—including, I believe, those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Bartley). I may tell him, although I do not expect that he has felt this, that a few people in his constituency have been wondering what was going to be the future with regard to agricultural prices. He, no doubt as I did, told those who asked him that we all have perfect confidence in Her Majesty's Government, and that a sound scheme for preserving the price structure to the farmer would be worked out.
That is what we have in the White Paper, and we are very glad to see it, but I want to ask the Minister whether it is going to work out if we have a free importation of grain from world markets,

particularly if that grain comes from dollar countries. During harvest time I was going round the corn halls of Kings Lynn and Norwich, trying to sell, in a small way, some of the excellent barley samples which I had grown on my farm. Time and again, in trying to sell this barley, I was met by merchants who did not seem to think that it was of malting quality, though they were quite wrong. I found that at the ports there was an influx of Canadian barley which the merchants could buy, and which they apparently preferred to my barley.
The first thing that struck me was that they were spending on that Canadian barley the hard-earned dollars for which I had been exhorting the exporters in Sheffield and other industrial towns to send their products across the Atlantic to Canada and America. I found that the dollars so earned were apparently being used to bring in Canadian barley, at a time when the English farmer was doing his best to sell his barley at harvest time. I am sure that there were reasons for that, and if the Minister can give us some of them I should like to hear them.
The point which I want to make to him is that although it may be that the glut at harvest time, if there were one, will work itself out, we should look to the future, when this deficiency scheme is operating, and when we have private merchants buying on private account throughout the world, bringing corn, grain and barley in at possibly extremely cheap prices. That will have the effect of driving down the price of home-grown grain, and next year, if I may take my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West with me to the corn halls, we may find that the prices offered by the merchant are going down and down and down.
I may be told that barley is being imported from Saudi Arabia and that there is a glut, or from America or, possibly, Canada. I may be told, "We will give you 50s. or 60s. a quarter." I know that I could claim the deficiency payment at the end of the year, but I have to wait 12 months before I get that. Surely we shall be using hard earned dollars to buy grain to bring to this country to drive down the price for the farmer at home, and the difference will have to be made up out of the Exchequer. That seems to me a very long way round of using precious dollars.
I admit that this is a sound scheme, but I suggest that in considering it in its whole conception one more facet which has not been mentioned in the White Paper must be considered. It is essential that the whole scheme should be bound up with an import restrictions scheme, either through the Ministry of Food, if it still exists, or, possibly through the Ministry of Agriculture. I do not know which. It does not seem to me to be a sensible proposition to import vast quantities of cheap food, which have the effect of driving down the home price. In the long run that will not benefit the consumer because the consumer, as a taxpayer, will have to make up the difference.
Has the Minister in contemplation a provision whereby there will be some form of import licences? I am a Conservative and have always believed in protection of some kind. I certainly believe that British agriculture must have protection. It has had it in the past under Conservative Governments.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: No.

Dr. King: Dr. King rose——

Mr. Roberts: I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment. If we are to work a scheme of deficiency payments, whereby the taxpayer has to make up the difference—and by that I mean that my constituents in Sheffield will have to make up the difference to pay the constituents of my hon. Friend in Norfolk—we must have such an arrangement. In the long run the present procedure will not bring down the cost of living.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I am not at all clear whether the hon. Gentleman's proposals involve legislation or whether they can be done through the administrative processes.

Mr. Roberts: I understand that the question of import licences and the granting of them is dealt with purely by regulation and Ministerial order. It is only recently that the powers to grant private licences for purchasing grain from Canada were used. There is no need for legislation for that.

Dr. King: We are very interested in this problem on this side of the House. Did not the hon. Member fight the last Election on freeing the people from all

controls and is he not now arguing that if he is to solve the problem of the British farmers he needs controls?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member makes the mistake which so many hon. Members opposite make of trying to over-simplify the issue. I certainly did not fight the last Election, nor, I think, did any single right hon. or hon. Member on this side of the House, on doing away with all controls. The only person who might possibly support that is Lord Beaver-brook, in the "Daily Express." He had that idea of freeing all controls. I have always felt that in the vast organisation of Government which we have at present there must be some form of basic control. That is fundamental, as far as I understand it, to Conservative thought, to Liberal thought, and, to some extent, to Socialist thought.
The point I was coming to was this. I am a little worried about the use of dollars for the purchase of food from Canada. My constituents want to see cheese rationing abolished as soon as possible. Canada has a surplus of cheese at the present time, and there are negotiations now going on, I understand, to purchase up to 10,000 lb. of Canadian cheese. The dollars are the trouble. On the one hand, we can spare dollars for the purchase of Canadian barley, but find it difficult—and, of course, it is—to find dollars for the purchase of Canadian cheese.
I hope that my hon. Friend will note what I am going to say now and have a word with the Minister of Food on this subject, because I am sure that he will take note of any suggestion that my hon. Friend makes to him. I believe that dollars would be better used in the purchase of cheese than in the purchase of barley. I understand that the negotiations with Canada have got into a rather difficult stage, in that the Minister of Agriculture there is a Westerner and his politics tend to think more in the terms of the great prairies and wheat and barley and the rest of it. I have no doubt that he will try to push upon the Government here grain and corn crops and other food from the West rather than the dairy products of Ontario and the East. There are circumstances there that may not weigh with him as a Canadian politician quite so much as surpluses of grain in the West.
Nevertheless, I do hope that the Government will still keep the idea of obtaining, if they can, this Canadian cheese. If they cannot purchase it straight from the Federal Government there is no reason why they should not purchase it from the cheese producers themselves. Whereas the Canadian Government, I understand, are standing out for the exorbitant price of 30 cents a lb., I think the reasonable price at which the cheese could be bought is something like 25 cents a lb. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that if dollars are available my constituents in Sheffield, at any rate, will prefer them to be spent on cheese than on the importation of rather doubtful quality barley.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West for raising this subject tonight. There are more small farmers in this country than there are big ones. There are greater needs for what I would call co-operative mechanisation among the smallholders and the small farmers, and I believe that a lead can well be given by the Ministry in trying to encourage the breaking up of farms which become available for this purpose. The idea of farmers getting together in a co-operative scheme for the use on a share basis of machinery is, of course, no new one, and it works not only in countries like Canada and America, but, I understand, they have tried it even in Russia, though not very successfully because the people who work the land there do not get any results from their labours.
Here, in this country, the need for machinery in agriculture is becoming more and more important. I do not believe that the small man without mechanisation will be able to compete, in the long-run, with those farms which are of a unit and size where mechanisation pays. We have heard a lot about people getting on to the bottom rung, but I have known many smallholders getting on to the bottom rung without sufficient working capital and sufficient machinery who have gone "bust" when the winds of competition have blown.
It may be very bad advice to suggest that they should start on this form of activity unless they have the tools to do the job. It may be quite impossible for a smallholder, even of five or six acres, to be successful as was said just now, if

he has to use old equipment and primitive methods of agriculture. The success of this small type of agriculture, which is vital to the morale of our village communities, is dependent on a pool of agricultural machinery.

Colonel Clarke: I gather that my hon. Friend is recommending a very large extension of smallholdings, but a few moments ago he admitted that from the point of view of the maximum economic production of the country we could not expect to get as much from smallholdings as from the larger farms. How does he reconcile these two statements, and, in view of the need for the maximum output of this country, how would he hold the balance between the one and the other?

Mr. Roberts: I would hold the balance in this way. I believe that, socially, it is far better for a man to work some part of his own land, however small it may be, and be able to obtain the benefits of his work on an individualistic basis. Even if that is not quite so efficient, I believe that the benefit one would get merely from the morale of a sense of ownership would be a great advantage to our country life. I would keep the balance between the two.
The amount which I envisage from these farms, which might be called cooperative smallholdings, would be a very small percentage of the whole. The work would have to be done on a cooperative machinery basis and in respect of a much larger area than that of one village—possibly three or four villages—and there may be trouble as to who should have the machinery when the weather is fine and the harvest ripe; but these things have been solved in other places as well as this. That is the great advantage which I see. It would have more advantage in the social aspect than in the economic, but, nevertheless, I hope that tonight we shall have a lead from my hon. Friend, and that he will say that, even if they are not quite so efficient, we wish to see the small holders of this country getting much the same benefits as the farming community.
I hope that he will not omit to make reference in his speech to this point about the White Paper deficiency payment on less than one acre, and that he will not penalise, if that is the right word to use,


the small man who grows his corn on one shift a year of less than one acre. I hope that he will be able to look at this matter again in order to give some encouragement to those people who, I find, tend to move away from the land rather than go on to it, for this very reason of the small economic unit being an uneconomic unit.
I hope that the few words which I have put to the Minister will show him that we in Sheffield realise that food production from allotments can play just as vital a part as food production from smallholdings in the agricultural areas. I would say that they have a bigger part to play because there are more people who can do that part-time work in the evenings in a large city like Sheffield to the square acre than there are in the bigger rural areas. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will look into this point which I have raised with regard to the railway sidings to see whether he can encourage the Railway Executive to be more sympathetic towards those people who wish to use allotments, and give some guide and encouragement to the thousands of people in Sheffield who are at present running effective and productive allotments. I hope he will say that he feels that their work is equally well worth while and that he hopes that they will continue that work in the future.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. J. Slater: I have been interested in the speeches which have been made, particularly those from the other side of the House. When I entered the Chamber I heard the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) refer to the Prime Minister's statement about guaranteed prices to the farming community. The farming community would be gratified if the Minister tonight gave support to the statements made by the hon. Member, because it appears to the farming community throughout the country that it has now become the Government's policy to interfere with the guaranteed price arrangements.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) referred to the fact that many of the people who had taken over smallholdings in his area were ex-Service men and said that that was as it should be. Those who have served in our Armed Forces have the right to receive the same

priority as any others in this matter, but I do not think that they should be placed in front of others. What I have in mind in saying this is that in our agricultural sphere there are men with experience who have never yet been give an opportunity of taking over smallholdings which they would be able to develop in their own right and on which they would be able to put into operation the many things which they have learnt during their employment. The farm labourer is not receiving the treatment which he ought to be receiving under our present agricultural administration.
There is another important matter which I have raised in Questions to the Minister, and the Minister has been good enough to say that he has now given instructions that by reason of the form of tenancy in respect of smallholdings the wife of a deceased smallholder shall now be given an opportunity of taking over the smallholding on her husband's death. In spite of this the position is not entirely satisfactory.
I have in mind a case in my constituency, which covers three rural areas, together with an urban authority. A husband and wife went from the west of the county to the east where they were fortunate enough to find a smallholding and while they were learning how to run it the husband died. Under the regulations governing smallholdings, the widow was given notice to quit the smallholding. Although some of my hon. Friends do not agree with me, I believe that there should be dual tenancy agreements for smallholdings. Because of the provision relating to five years' experience in smallholding cultivation, the 19 years-old son who had been called up for the Armed Forces and had been discharged was not allowed the opportunity of taking over the tenancy of the smallholding on which he had worked with his father before he entered the Armed Forces. That is one of the things that does happen within the regulations.
Another thing with which I am concerned is to know whether the Minister is satisfied, judging the reports which are coming into him, as to whether the smallholdings under the control of the agricultural executive committees are being fully operated. It has been brought to my notice that some smallholdings which were brought into full operation


are being used by neighbouring farmers who are allowed to put their beasts on the land. That has been recognised as a smallholding kept in production. To me that is not a smallholding which is being used to its fullest extent, and something ought to be done about it.
I also should like to draw attention to a state of affairs which exists today and to which we see reference from time to time in publications when farms are going up for auction. I myself experienced a case of this kind when speaking to a gentleman who at the age of 60 was resigning from an industrial undertaking on reaching superannuation age. He looked rather young for his years, and I asked him what he was going to do now that he was finishing with his life work. He replied, "I am going to buy a farm."
Quite a number of these people who have no experience whatever in agriculture are taking the opportunity because they have the means to purchase farms which are going up for sale. I urge the Minister to take a greater interest in this matter, so that those people who are interested in smallholding cultivation today can be given the opportunity to acquire a farm rather than people retiring from industry with no experience, even if it means that the Minister has to secure more powers to enable agricultural executive committees to purchase land if there is a longstanding desire by agricultural people for smallholdings.
My last point has to deal with the breeding of pigs. There are a lot of smallholdings in my county and especially in my constituency, and some of these people have begun the breeding of pigs. Having provided piggeries they now found that they could do with larger buildings, and they have made application for grants that they might be able to extend their breeding facilities. They have not been granted. Here we find initiative which, if given an opportunity, would be able to do that very thing which we in this House have been advocating, namely increase production. Incentive ought to be given to those people who are so positioned that they can increase production in agriculture.
I hope the Minister in the course of his administration—we all know the

interest that he takes in agriculture—will see that a greater opportunity for initiative exists even if it means the agricultural executive committees buying up farms when they become vacant, and giving them to some of those agricultural workers, so keeping them within their own industry as well as seeking to improve the output of the country.

9.4 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) is not in his place because I want to make one or two comments on what he said. His speech revealed the dilemma in which hon. Members opposite find themselves when discussing agricultural problems. Those hon. Members opposite who represent rural areas want to see a prosperous British agriculture whether in the form of smallholdings or in some other form At the same time, as loyal supporters of the Government, they desire to defend the Government's policy which is being followed at the present time. They find it impossible to reconcile the two. That is why they are in this constant dilemma of seeking to advance the interests of smallholders and of agriculture generally and, at the same time, to support the policy or lack of policy which is being demonstrated by the present Administration.
An hon. Member asked the Parliamentary Secretary to give a lead tonight, and I am quite certain that if he expects his hon. Friend to do so he will be disappointed. I recall an occasion in 1951 when the Parliamentary Secretary was making a speech—not in this House but somewhere outside—and he was dealing with the question of capital investment in agriculture. According to "The Times" report, which is vividly impressed on my mind, he said, "I honestly don't know what the answer to that is." Here we are in 1953, two years later, and the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture still do not know what is the answer.
It is obvious that more capital investment is required to enable the smallholders to carry on. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) dealt with the difficulties of smallholders breeding pigs. It takes about five years to establish a reasonably good herd and a certain amount of capital investment is


required for the building of piggeries. What inducement is there at the present time to any smallholder to go in for pigs if he does not know what the policy of the Government is going to be? Must he rely, as others in the agricultural industry are being asked to rely, upon some scheme of deficiency payments, the nature of which, if it has been made clear to the agricultural industry, is viewed with profound suspicion?,
I was in Somerset this week-end speaking in one or two agricultural areas of that county. I discovered that last month the executive of the Somerset branch of the National Farmers' Union passed a resolution in the strongest possible terms condemning the system of deficiency payments. In fact, Mr. Harry Green, a member of the Council of the N.F.U., stated the other day that he knew the answer to the problem. What was his solution? His solution was the continuance of the Ministry of Food and of bulk buying. That extraordinary statement represents what a prominent member of the N.F.U. thinks as a result of the messing up—I cannot describe it in any other way—of agriculture of which the present Government are guilty.
The hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) admitted that there was a need for basic control. That is what we on this side of the House have been saying for a long time. That is what the farmers now know is essential if agriculture is to survive. Speaking in the City of Lonlon a few days ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a sneering reference to those people who prefer the cushioned comfort of controls to the sweetness of liberty.
My comment on that is that the agricultural community of this country do not want the sweet liberty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Government are endeavouring to force upon them. They view it with the pro-foundest suspicion because they know that the kind of liberty, this setting of people free, which the present Government are endeavouring to impose upon the farmers and the farming community against their will is likely to bring the same degree of ruination to British agriculture now as it brought to British agriculture in the years between the two wars.

Colonel Clarke: The hon. and gallant Member talks of the ruin that was brought

upon British agriculture between the wars, but does he recollect that when in 1932 the National Government, who were predominantly Conservative, came in, they improved the agricultural marketing schemes which had been introduced by the Socialists, which up to then had been of no use whatever, by insisting on a certain measure of control of imports? From that time onwards, British agriculture improved and output had increased by 25 per cent. at the beginning of the war after having been at its lowest ebb during the Socialist Administration.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is very odd that the short period of Socialist Administration between the two wars should now be held responsible for the deplorable state in which British agriculture found itself, generally speaking, during the whole period from 1919 to 1939.
Anyhow, I accept what the hon. Member for Heeley said: there is a need for basic control. But we cannot reconcile this need for basic control, without which British agriculture cannot survive, with support for deficiency payments or some other vague prospect as a result of which the agriculture producer does not know what he is going to get as a result of his efforts.

Major Legge-Bourke: When the hon. and gallant Member talks of deficiency payments, he will, of course, realise that the National Farmers' Union have agreed to the scheme for deficiency payments on cereals.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Yes, but they do not seem to be quite as enthusiastic, either as a result of their experience with cereals or by reason of the fears that they entertain if this same sort of thing is applied to other sections of agriculture, as hon. Members on the Government side seem to think.

Mr. P. Roberts: The hon. and gallant Member said that the farmer will not know what payments he is to receive. As I understand the White Paper, the farmer will know the minimum that he is to receive. He may not know exactly the figure above that if he is successful, but he will know the minimum which he will receive, which, in the case of barley, for instance, is 25s. 6d. per cwt. Surely, the farmer must know that.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: There is no time to go into the point in too great detail, because we all want to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say, but one factor which seems to be abundantly clear is that there is more confusion, more doubt and more suspicion in the minds of the agricultural community at present than for many years past. That is something for which the agricultural community itself is not responsible. It is something for which the present Government are responsible as a result of the policy, or lack of policy, which they have been trying to pursue since 1951.
The resolution, to which I have referred, which was adopted by the Somerset branch of the National Farmers' Union clearly indicates that the farmers did not want a return of the middle men and parasites—those are the actual words used in an editorial in a local paper dealing with the matter—into the marketing or disposal of agricultural produce. That is something for which the present Government are entirely responsible.
I agree with the hon. Member for Heeley that the small man is penalised and that better provision ought to be made for him. I doubt very much whether satisfactory provision will be made for the small man, because it is just as difficult, if not more difficult, for the farmer to obtain money now for capital investment as it ever has been, although there has been a fall in the interest rates. I do not know to what extent that will be followed by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation.
For all these reasons, there can be no doubt whatever that the agricultural community view all the actions of the present Government in the field of agriculture with the profoundest suspicion and alarm. The sooner the Government give assurance to smallholders and farmers alike that they can expect the same kind of stability and guaranteed prices which they enjoyed under the Labour Government, the better it will be for British agriculture. Otherwise, I warn the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, he is running a very grave risk that before very long he will find himself confronted with a situation in which the National Farmers' Union will seek affiliation to the T.U.C. in order to secure fairer treatment.

9.16 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I would not have spoken but there have been no Scots voices in this debate and when I heard the voice of Brixton appealing on behalf of the farmers I recognised to what a parlous state the debate must have fallen. I thought Brixton would be a very remote place which farmers would not be likely to visit even if they were attracted by such names as are represented by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). I do not think he should enter the ranks of those who plead for the farmers.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I did not particularly want to disclose this fact, but I happen to be a member of the National Farmers' Union and do a little cultivation myself.

Sir W. Darling: That assurance gives me great satisfaction. I had not imagined that the National Farmers' Union had any great difficulty in finding members. It does not have any class distinctions and the hon. and gallant Member has not had to display whether he can follow a plough—at least he could follow it, but I question whether the arts practised at Brixton would include that of tractor driving. The hon. and gallant Member caused me to make up my mind that if I had to spend the weekend in London, as I may have to do, I would go to Brixton to see Quin and Axtens, the Bon Marché and other centres of cultivation. If I see him there it will certainly add to my pleasure.
This discussion is one bearing on allotments and smallholdings and the desirability of getting the relatively small man, from the point of view of personal capital, into the agricultural industry. As one engaged in the agricultural industry—with my wife I farm 300 acres in an area which is almost as unfertile as Brixton itself—I have some practical knowledge of the subject, and I agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) about the importance of some arrangements for entry into the agricultural field of men with small capital, but great energy and interest.
In Scotland, there is a continuous demand for smallholdings which is never adequately met. It is made by those who are seeking to make the experiment made


by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton and others elsewhere who are seeking small farms and smallholdings which up to now they have not been able to find. I would not encourage urban-minded persons such as the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton to be carried away by the lure and romance of country life without any training. I believe that persons who want to enter agriculture should go through a fairly severe apprenticeship, although it is true that many men and women who spend their lives in factories, mines and industrial occupations have made a considerable success of farming. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will agree that they do not bring to the subject the prejudices which the native born countryman is inclined to bring to the art of cultivation of the land.
This debate is useful because it has shown in many quarters—some surprising quarters—the passionate and abiding interest there is in this method of land development. I hope that the Government will further such schemes as exist and perhaps encourage new ones for giving opportunities to those who are land minded.
One of the pieces of mismanagement which has characterised our country in recent years has been the acquisition for the building of houses of land which might have been more usefully employed for the cultivation of crops and the extension of agriculture. Local authorities—the one I represent is as much a sinner as any other—have tended too regularly to choose pleasant cultivated fields for housing development when their duty was, in Scotland in particular, to utilise untended rocky land, which is abundant. It is easy to take agreeable, smooth, cultivated meadows, and it is cheaper, but this policy has serious national consequences in relation to agriculture.
If my conception of planning had been carried out there would have been a limitation of urban communities in the sense that towns of 100,000 population would have been forbidden to extend their boundaries until a suitable distance of some 10 miles of agricultural land had been secured in a concentric form so that we should have the advantages of urban life and the supporting ones of rural life. In the area in which I am speaking we have a concentration of about 16 million

people, a strategic danger and an economic problem to themselves and a national problem which is far from solution. We have that aggregation of population, which is a severe strain on the economy of the country as a whole. The idea of having town, then unmistakable country and town again would provide what is greatly demanded by town dwellers, the opportunity which they too infrequently have of having land to cultivate.
The passion of the town dweller to have an acre, or a quarter of an acre, an allotment or a smallholding, is a permanent factor in the minds of all of us. During the war when regulations were relaxed, we found in town areas that the keeping of pigs, which would not normally have been allowed—even the keeping of poultry was discouraged—grew very rapidly, as did the cultivation of land for vegetables and fruit. We saw the stimulating effect on town dwellers of that opportunity. All that is bound up with passion deep in the minds of all of us—even the hon. and learned Member for Brixton and myself. We come from the soil and we will go back to it, God willing.
The passion for the cultivation of the land is deep-seated in all of us. We are only very recently—a matter of 200 years—a town dwelling population in this island of ours. So when we have a debate like this, in which many diverse opinions have been expressed, there emerges the fundamental, abiding interest there is in this question of the better, fuller and more adequate cultivation of the land, not only by countrymen, the noble peasantry of the countryside, but by town dwellers like the hon. and gallant Member and myself.
There is one further observation I wish to make. I could discourse on this subject at some length—I do not know whether anyone challenges me to do so. My observation is in regard to the remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton about finance for the land. I happen to be interested in the financing of the agricultural development of our country. Something he said—I have heard it said more emphatically from other quarters in the House—amounted to the suggestion that there was inadequate finance available for farmers and others to develop their property.
The amount of money advanced by Scottish banks to farmers in Scotland


during the present year is the highest it has ever been in the history of the Scottish agricultural industry. I am advised that a similar statement could be made with equal truth regarding the English banking system. At no time in our history has capital been more readily available for worthwhile borrowers from the banking system than it is today, and there is no agricultural interest of any worth or standing that has the slightest difficulty in getting adequate capital to carry it through the ups and downs and the unavoidable ebb and flow of agricultural production.
In view of what has been said elsewhere and hinted at today, it is right to say that whatever diffidences there are in the agricultural field there is no diffidence from lack of finance. Other industries are penalised. The instructions of the Bank of England to the banks today is that finance may be made available first of all for the export trade, secondly for the housing of the people, and, thirdly, for agriculture. Any other borrower is nowhere in the queue. Whatever anxieties are held by some people as to whether the worthwhile farmer or smallholder will have difficulty about getting his money, the Minister will no doubt be able tonight to reassure any victim of those anxieties by giving him the address of a suitable finance house able to undertake the necessary financial operations. I hope I have said sufficient to help to allay some of the fears which have been expressed from all sides of the House.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton thought it proper to suggest that because the Somerset branch of the National Farmers' Union had expressed certain opinions he must necessarily identify himself with them. I do not think that his duty carries him to that length. The Somerset branch will be surprised to learn that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been taking so much notice of their views. I beg him not to be too serious about them. Farmers have only recently come into this form of organisation and they take it very seriously. I am no more inclined to take the National Farmers' Union very seriously than I am to take the Transport and General Workers' Union very seriously. They both think they are very

important, but I am equally impartial about them. Let us respect the National Farmers' Union. It is news to me to hear that they are respected on the Opposition side of the House. They are respected because they are an important and worthwhile organisation, and because they represent the knowledge of a large section of the agricultural industry.
But we must not be too slavish. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must use the stout common sense that enables him to rebut the views of the shopkeepers of Brixton in order to rebut those of the National Farmers' Union. He must not be so sentimental. He is a stout defender of the principle of the nationalisation of the land and of the abolition of private and free enterprise everywhere, and he must not be entangled in all these special feelings on this subject. I beg him to stand up in his own characteristic way. Let him maintain his independence and not be seduced too much by the arguments of the National Farmers' Union. Let him maintain his independent judgment and I shall support him.
Her Majesty's Government must take into account the opinions of all organised bodies, but there are many bodies which are not organised and who are entitled to speak and to have some consideration shown to them. There is a large body of farmers who are outside the National Farmers' Unions. I attend many public meetings and hear the Unions speaking occasionally. I listen to their somewhat stilted eloquence, but they speak from their heart and rightly from their own personal interest and not from the interest of the community. They are like any other organisation. Her Majesty's Government, of course, have to take a more national view.
Returning to the main theme of this debate, I think that it is very valuable and indeed encouraging that in the resumption of this Session we should devote these hours to the consideration of agriculture. Whatever our views on its importance or unimportance, its relation to our personal life or otherwise, it is fundamental to our economy and the Government who neglect in its widest and broadest sense the business of agriculture are a Government who neglect their main duty.
Industry has come to this country and it may well go. It requires no great


prophet to foresee that this island may well be again what it was 300 years ago—famous for the export of wool and the cultivation of livestock. This island has possibly passed its peak of industrial greatness, but whatever happens to our industry the land will remain and those who live by the land—and we all live by the land—will remain. Therefore, it is important that we should give it our time this evening to some consideration of the many aspects of this subject. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to deal with the various facets. At any rate, the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton and I have made a very adequate contribution.

9.32 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I am sure that no one in the House will dissent from that last sentence in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). I should like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) on raising this matter on the Adjournment and providing what has been a very valuable and interesting debate, even though at times it has strayed somewhat from the original subject of smallholdings.
I feel that I must begin by taking to task in a gentle fashion the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), although he has had a rather severe dressing down from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South. I shall have to ask the hon. and gallant Member to give me a specific time, place and quotation in respect of the remark which he attributes to me about the future capitalisation of the industry, because although I believe that there is no simple answer, my general belief has been, and I have always stated it, that so long as the industry is kept reasonably solvent, making a reasonably good income, it will be able to find the fresh capital that it needs within its own resources.
I am perfectly certain that that is right and that, assisted by reasonable credit from the banks and other finance houses, the industry will be able to proceed annually, as it has been doing for a good many years now, to find £80 million a

year, or thereabouts, to put back in the industry to capitalise fresh developments. Therefore, I think that it is extremely improbable that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right with his first shot.
There is perhaps another aspect which I should take up with him. I acknowledge him as a member, and no doubt an influential member, of the National Farmers' Union. On hearing his suggestion that the National Farmers' Union might be affiliated to the T.U.C., I was bound to wonder just what sort of cultivation he went in for. No doubt he will be able to explain that in some other place. He threw doubt on a field which touches this debate on smallholdings—on the prospect that would lie before the smallholder who was considering a development in pigs. The effect of his remark was that he wondered what inducement there would be for the smallholder to go in for pig breeding when the future is unknown. With the close contacts with the industry which he has evidently established now, the hon. and gallant Member should know that there is a minimum price schedule for pigs for the next three or four years and that that in itself guarantees a very substantial stability in the production of pigs for years come.
On the wider subject of the prospect for farmers generally the hon. and gallant Member doubted whether farmers really welcomed the liberty that this Government are giving not only to farmers but to the whole community. My own belief is that not only the farming community but the nation as a whole welcome what this Government are doing. What my right hon. Friend and I are specifically concerned with is to design forms of price and market stability for the different commodities, which will enable us to continue into this freer economy, at the same time maintaining the necessary stability in agriculture in order to provide the long-term confidence to maintain the volume of production we have got now, and indeed to go on increasing it. That is our specific task, and I think that we can rightly maintain that in the field of cereals, for which we have already announced our plan, we have done something which meets both needs.
I am quite certain that farmers and the farming community generally welcome this, our major national policy of


removing State trading and control and removing rationing and allocation, and would be the last people to say, "We wish to stand in the way and perpetuate a system of allocation and rationing." I am certain that they will be prepared to look objectively at the various schemes which we introduce, one by one, in order to reconcile these two interests.
If I may turn to the very interesting specific points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West, I should like to deal with this general problem of providing smallholdings and the general policy of the Government in connection with it. The general policy of the Government today is founded on Part IV of the 1947 Act. This is a nonparty matter. That Act was brought in by hon. Members opposite, and we on this side of the House have pursued the same policy, with one or two small but, I think, important amendments, which were referred to particularly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) in relation to part-time holdings. In the main, it is a non-party matter, and what we are concerned to see is the continuity of this policy and a steady development.
Although I had no part in it, I think that probably the architects of Part IV of the 1947 Act had certain basic thoughts in mind when they were designing the new set-up for smallholdings. I imagine that they felt that primarily the land must be regarded as the greatest natural heritage that we have, and that, therefore, whatever was done in this field, we should ensure that full production would be maintained and, if possible, increased. I feel that that was their first thought, and that they then tried to reconcile that necessity with a sound sociological policy of settling as many people as possible on smallholdings, so that, as my hon. Friends have rightly said, a man should be given a chance of having his own holding and running it himself to the benefit of himself, his wife and children from a sociological point of view.
I am bound to say that, in my view, they did not make a bad shot at it. There are all kinds of specific criticisms that one can make about the results in this county and that county. Of course, they differ one from another. I have been

fortunate enough to serve for a good many years as chairman of the smallholdings committee in my county, and I took a very great interest in doing what I could on much the same lines as those of the 1947 Act to improve the economic strength of our smallholdings. My experience made me very well aware of the weaknesses of the smallholding policy, which was conceived in the best possible spirit, following the 1914–18 war. At that time the emphasis was undoubtedly on the sociological aspect, and not sufficient attention was given to the question of food production.
One outcome was that county councils setting up smallholding schemes in the 1920's were concerned far more with the number of schemes they could produce than with their actual quality and economic strength. Quite a lot of smallholdings were completely unfit, economically, to give the men concerned a living. They were let in for a hopeless prospect.

Dr. King: I think the Minister will agree that, in order to complete the picture, it would be fair to say that those men ran into the most vigorous economic blizzard in the inter-war years, which ruined many good farmers as well as these men.

Mr. Nugent: I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) to a limited extent, but had these men been really expert they would have had a good chance of surviving. There were many who started then—and I was one of them—with nothing beyond their hands, and who had to borrow their capital resources. There were many who started in those difficult years—the 1920's and 1930's—who, nevertheless, were able to build up holdings and make sufficient profits to pay off what they had borrowed and establish themselves in the industry.
The fault was, first, that the holdings were not adequately laid out or equipped and, secondly, that in many cases the men were not sufficiently expert to cope with the difficulties of the job. Following the passing of the 1947 Act the first thing that was done, in my view quite rightly, was to make a survey of the existing holdings, with the intention of bringing the maximum possible number up to sound economic units, which would give


the smallholders a reasonable living, let us say, at least £400 or £500 a year.
This is the point about which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely is critical. He complains that we are still continuing the process of ending part-time smallholdings, because they are being combined into larger holdings in order to form these economic units. My right hon. Friend has laid down quite clearly his policy about part-time smallholdings. To that extent he has made a change from the policy of the previous Administration, who said that they were all to come to an end. My right hon. Friend has said that he is prepared to consider cases put up by any smallholding authority—any county council—to justify the continuation of their existing part-time holdings, and, in exceptional cases, even to consider new ones.
That means that a county council like the Isle of Ely, where there is a great tradition of part-time holdings—as there is in some other East Anglian counties—can put up a case to show that these holdings have been well cultivated, and are doing a useful job in food production and also sociologically. But there are many other counties where one simply could not put up a comparable case, where one finds part-time smallholdings which have stood out of cultivation for years, and where it is almost impossible for the agricultural committees to press the smallholders concerned into proper cultivation. Inevitably the smallholder says, "You have to realise that I am earning my living in the neighbouring factory. How can I be expected to put in the necessary number of hours on my smallholding? "

Mr. Bartley: In some instances the neighbouring tenant wishes to increase his holding, but has difficulty in getting neighbouring holdings which are not being used fully or at all.

Mr. Nugent: The hon. Member has a special problem in his county, and I sympathise with his strong and kindly feelings about the problems of the smallholders there. But here I come up against another point. How much freedom is a county council, as an authority, to be given in the management of its holdings? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely says there is too much

interference while the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Bartley) says there is not enough direction. It is very difficult to get exactly the right balance but, having for a good many years taken part in local government, I feel that the right policy is to give local government bodies a pretty big measure of discretion to use their own judgment.
In 99 cases out of 100 they will not only do the right thing but will get better administration because the local people are doing it. I can assure the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street that we will continue to do our best, through our officers, to help the Durham County Council, as far as we are able, to solve their various problems, but I must make the general comment about how diverse is the picture from one county to another and how what suits one county does not suit another.
The general policy which has been followed of concentrating first on bringing our existing smallholdings up to a sound economic level is, I think, right, and even if it has reduced the total number it has at least ensured that those holdings will give a man a living and will get reasonable production from the land. It has meant that a large part of the resources which might have been available for the development of new holdings has gone into the business of improving the old holdings.
These figures will probably be interesting to the House. We had some 9,615 holdings under county councils altogether in 1949 and just under 5,000—a little over half—were up to the standard defined in Part IV of the 1947 Act. There has been a steady increase year by year, which has naturally quickened as the work has proceeded, and in 1952 over 6,000 were up to the right standard. In March this year it was nearly 7,000–6,862 holdings were up to the Part IV standard out of a total of by then 9,490, so that the total number had not dropped very much.
A great deal of the improvement was concerned with putting the proper equipment on the holding, and there again I am absolutely certain that that is right. I have seen any number of these smallholdings meet difficulties. A man might struggle with perhaps a small dairy holding on unsuitable land, on stiff land,


where he ought never to have been to start with, having an indifferent range of buildings and nowhere to put the stock in the winter. In those conditions he has very great difficulty in making a living. I am therefore glad that the county councils have been devoting their attention to improving the equipment as well as rationalising the size of the holdings, where possible.

Major Legge-Bourke: I agree that in dairy farming areas it is necessary to do that, but would not my hon. Friend agree that in an arable area like most of the Fens it is easy to waste money in unnecessarily elaborate capital equipment?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, and of course a horticultural unit may be a perfectly sound economic unit with only five acres. I know a holding of one acre which is a very sound economic unit, but certainly five acres of horticultural land will be more than a sound unit. I agree that an elaborate range of buildings is not necessary there, but very many smallholdings in the country are dairy holdings or livestock holdings—pigs and poultry—and they must have adequate equipment if the men are to make a reasonable living out of them.
This has meant that the county councils could not proceed quite as fast with new holdings as they might have done, but that is no reflection on them, for they have been proceeding in a very valuable manner with improvements to the old holdings. The figures of new holdings have shown some small increase in the last year or two, which is to be expected as the development has gained impetus. From March, 1951, to March, 1953, they have acquired over 7,000 acres of new land and they have leased a further 2,930 acres. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West has said, Norfolk has bought some land this year, rather over 200 acres, the first land they have bought for this purpose since the war.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West expressed some anxiety, and so did other hon. Members, about the standards we apply in the Ministry when considering a proposal from a county council. Perhaps I should start at the beginning of the general process of

considering a proposition for a new smallholding estate. The first thing is, of course, that the property must be offered on the market. Quite obviously, no one in this House, I am sure, would expect the Ministry, or, rather, the county council with the Ministry behind them, to exercise compulsory purchase powers to turn a man out of a farm to break it up into smallholdings. That would be intolerable. Therefore we have to wait until a property comes on to the market, and a great many do not come on the market.
The next thing is to see that it comes at a reasonable price. A good many properties coming on the market now are so highly priced we could not consider them. Next—and this is absolutely vital—the property must have suitable soil. I have seen any number of holdings set up on indifferent soil. I know one county council that before the war had a policy of not purchasing land for smallholdings at more than £20 an acre. That made it absolutely certain that they would never buy any land suitable for smallholdings. Today that council have the problem of trying to make the holdings suitable for men with the tremendous handicap of working those smallholdings on very stiff land. It is important that we should have for smallholdings good, fertile soil.
Finally, we have to consider whether it is a sound proposition. The process of financing it is that the county council concerned borrow the money. Here I am able to confirm the thought that, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West had, that the loans for that purpose have now become a little cheaper than they were. They have now come down to 4 per cent. That was announced yesterday. So it came very timely for my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate. In this way county councils will be relieved, to a small extent, of loan charges.
The county council raise the money and then, after the outgoings have been assessed, that is loan charges, maintenance costs, and administration costs, the income from rents is also assessed, and from that is calculated the net loss which would accrue on that particular smallholding estate. Our system of assistance is to give a grant of 75 per cent. of the annual loss on the holding. The county council bear the other 25 per cent. on


their normal rate income. So the actual form of subsidy is a very substantial one, though made in this fashion of an annual grant.

Mr. Slater: Could the hon. Gentleman tell me what the basis is? Do the Ministry work on the basis of the number of applicants the county authority have on a certain list for smallholdings?

Mr. Nugent: We take of course into account the fact that these lists are very long in every county, provided a proposition is sound in the other three respects I have already given. Believe me it is not so easy to get all these things right, the right shape and size, the right soil and the right price, for these things do not happen frequently. I have seen a few since I have been at the Ministry.
The net cost of equipping each holding—and I am talking particularly of dairy holdings of 40 or 50 acres—should not be, we think, more than £7,500 for the land and buildings. We feel that is a sufficient loan for the taxpayer and ratepayer to bear because of the net loss which there will inevitably be over the rent that can reasonably be expected from the holding
The question of the rent control of a holding was mentioned, and that is a point which we have under consideration, as to whether the present arrangement of rent control is perhaps too rigid and that there might be a little more flexibility in this field.
I can assure my hon. Friends and the House generally that we do look at these propositions with a very sympathetic eye, but I think that the House will recognise that by the time we have satisfied the essential requirements of any smallholding scheme, the number is boiled down to not very many.

Mr. Bartley: I mentioned in my short speech the question of reclaiming land. Would the hon. Gentleman reply to the case of reclaiming badly drained land as a result of coalmining subsidence, so that it can be brought into use for smallholdings?

Mr. Nugent: There is no reason to exclude reclaimed land, but I have not examined in detail the proposition of using land which has been affected by coal-mining subsidence. I should doubt very much whether it would be suitable.

I think that it would be fair to say that we want good, well-drained land for this purpose.
I was also asked whether we were considering using land now held under requisition by other Government Departments. The answer is that if and when that land comes to us as a Department, it then goes to the Land Commission and the Land Commission, when considering how they will dispose of their land, always consider first whether any of it can be made suitable for county council smallholdings. Of course, almost invariably it is not suitable. It is probably some bare piece of not very good land which would not make particularly good smallholdings. There are one or two possibilities in Sussex where we may get a few new smallholdings from that source. We do not miss an opportunity if, in one way or another it is land in Government control, of offering it to county councils if, in our view, it really would be suitable.
Turning to one or two of the general considerations, let me assure the House that we do see this provision of county council smallholdings as the first rung in the ladder to give the farm worker a chance of having a holding of his own and of perhaps going on to a bigger holding later. That is why we have continued with the arrangement started by hon. Gentlemen opposite of requiring a five years' contract of service to establish that the man is in fact a bona fide farm worker. We have only made an exception in the case of a widow, to which an hon. Member opposite referred, where the county council concerned is satisfied that she in fact was a partner of the husband and does know how to work the holding. That seems to me to be the soundest basis both from the point of view of the industry as a whole and from the point of view of the individual, if we are going to make as sure as we can that he will be able to make a living out of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) asked whether we could make loans to assist the smallholder when he is starting. The answer is that the 1947 Act does provide for such loans. A county council can make a loan of up to 75 per cent. of what the smallholder requires on his ingoing and he has to find the other 25 per cent.


himself. That enables a man with relatively small resources in the way of his own savings to borrow the rest in order to start up his holding——

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion, made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Studholme.]

Mr. Nugent: Some use has been made of that by smallholders who are starting in different counties. I should mention that the cost of in-going is, of course, heavy. Again talking of the small dairy holding of 40 to 50 acres, it would probably cost a man anything from £2,000 to £2,500 to go in. That is simply the live and dead stock and the tenant right valuation, apart altogether from the value of the holding itself. That is a lot of money at the present time, but it is inevitable. It is part of the structure of the industry, and it makes it very difficult for young fellows to start.
We certainly want to see them moving through the holdings, if it is possible, regarding them really as a ladder. However, in my experience I have not seen many fellows move out of their holdings. I have seen it happen in the next generation; a father has started on a smallholding, made a living out of it and saved a bit, and has had his son working there, and then when his son has reached about 30 he has gone to a bigger holding with the savings created by his father. It would be optimistic for us to expect men to travel fast up the ladder in one generation, but we certainly see it as the ladder for the farm worker, and we shall proceed to encourage county councils who have satisfactory propositions to continue their development.
However, it is right that I should put this in perspective and remind the House that, after all, we are a country of smallholdings. Two-thirds of our holdings—200,000 of them—are under 50 acres, so that the provision which the county councils make with their 10,000 or so is really a very small part of a general agricultural economy mainly made up of small holdings. One must not get this aspect, very important and valuable though it is, out of perspective.

Mr. G. Williams: Is it laid down just what comprises a smallholding?

Mr. Nugent: I have not the definition before me, but my recollection is that a smallholding must not exceed 50 acres. The point I am making is that the general provision of smallholdings in the country is very great indeed.
There are certain considerations which we as the Ministry of Agriculture responsible for production have to keep always in mind. One has been referred to by hon. Friends of mine today, and that is that this is the day of mechanisation in farming. The greater part of the mechanisation that we have today is mechanisation for the big farm, and the problem of mechanisation on the small farm remains to a large extent still to be solved. It is extremely difficult to find machines which can do the operations which are required and yet not place too big a capital charge on the small farm.
It is difficult to design machines able to do the job when they have only a relatively small amount to do. One or two of our manufacturers have given a great deal of time and thought to this, but it still is a continuing problem on holdings of 50 acres or less. We have to be careful from the point of view of strengthening our general agricultural economy and reducing our costs, which is vital in the general picture of production. We want to increase production, but at the same time we want to reduce costs so that our people as a whole can get the benefit of cheaper food wherever it is possible.
In that context it is, therefore, most important to ensure that we do not lose the benefits of large-scale mechanisation as it proceeds to develop more and more. I certainly agree with those who have contended that there are many smallholders whose standard and volume of production are unequalled anywhere. There is no doubt about it. The man with his wife who works from dawn to dusk and does so with skill and industry will probably get a greater level of production off a smallholding than can possibly be got off a larger farm. That does depend upon good land suitable for the purpose, and where that is so and there is dry working and a good range of buildings the general management can be intensified.,
I have in mind going through one European country this year where they


have a big policy of land reform and are very anxious to get a good deal of development on smallholdings. I motored through miles and miles of land which had been developed in this fashion by these smallholding estates, and, practically speaking, all that had happened there was that someone had gone through that land with caterpillar tractors and had ploughed it up. Then someone else had come along and built small dwelling houses. How on earth those smallholders were going to make a living with no place to keep their animals and no way of increasing production to get a sufficient volume of output I do not know. That kind of approach to the smallholding problem is likely to do a man who settled there far more harm than good.
So I say quite emphatically that our policy is to see a steady development of county council smallholdings, to ensure that kind of development which will enable the men and women who go to live and work there to get a good living for themselves, and maintain at least the level of production that existed on that land before they started. I think the House can be assured, particularly my hon. Friend for Norfolk, South-West, that we shall do all we can to help the county councils with their holdings, but we shall try to preserve a policy in this matter which will keep a fair and proper balance between getting the fullest possible production, and at the same time settling as many men and women on the land in sound economic circumstances as we can.

Mr. P. Roberts: Will my hon. Friend answer those points which I put to him about the position of smallholders who have an acreage of oats or barley which is less than one acre, and whether or not they would be able to benefit by the Government scheme in this matter? If they do not will my hon. Friend look into it?

Major Legge-Bourke: Could my hon. Friend deal with the point I raised about the Smallholdings Advisory Council?

Mr. Nugent: I have to apologise to my hon. Friends for not answering all their points, but I would have taken a long time if I had answered all the questions put by everybody, and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts). He has now raised the particular issue of the deficiency payment not being applicable to areas of less than one acre. The answer is that the guarantees of prices which are given and fixed at the price reviews are applicable to commercial farming and are not applicable to horticulture or to very small holdings. Therefore, the guarantee of price in this respect is not an obligation to those with less than one acre.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely has referred to the Smallholdings Advisory Council. That body has done useful work both under this Administration and in the past. It is a technical body and was appointed because of the value of the technical advice of the members. I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish my right hon. Friend the Minister to change members because of their party affiliations so long as their technical advice is sound. They are only consulted on technical matters. We have not found it necessary to burden them with a great deal of work since we have been in office but, from time to time, they are called together when a fresh problem arises, for instance, on these part-time smallholdings. When we were considering that problem they gave me most objective and sensible advice, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there is no aspect of party bias in the committee. That being so, I am sure he would not wish that any members now serving should cease to serve on that account.

HOUSING, HORNCHURCH

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Now I can turn from some questions which hon. Gentlemen opposite were only too willing to ask to some questions which they are only too willing to avoid having to answer. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing has so little time left to answer because he has a great deal left to answer for. I want to raise at the first Parliamentary opportunity I can the disgusting and dreadful way in which, while his own Government stands by, the people of Hornchurch are being exploited by private enterprise builders.
Today, I asked the Minister a Question. I pointed out to him that in the last year the council have built only 24 houses to let and that, at the same time, there have been built 286 houses for sale. Not one word of reproof from the Minister, not one. He just produced an excuse for the Council. He said, "They cannot start on their principal new site till proper sewerage is available." But is sewerage not available for the private houses, or are houses built under private enterprise under a Conservative Government not connected with sewers? And if the private houses are on the sewerage system, why should not the council houses be put on the sewerage system? Why should it be so simple for private enterprise to get connected to the sewers and so difficult for the council to find a piece of land which is attached to them?
I then asked the Minister whether he could give me the latest available figures of houses under construction and, of course, he was not able to do so. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary has read the White Paper on British Guiana? If he looks at it he will find this rather revealing passage, which is why we sent a cruiser to British Guiana:
When the Ministers were dismissed large arrears of work were found in most of their offices; in the case of the Minister for Works, who was responsible for drainage and irrigation, important issues had been left undealt with for several months.
That would appear to be the case in this instance. The Minister had no further information than that contained in the

June Housing Return. That information, of course, is easily procurable. The figures are simple—98 houses under construction to let and 508 houses built for private enterprise.
When we discussed this matter in Hornchurch the Conservative Chairman of the Housing Committee said, "Oh, no, you should not believe that; the Minister's figures are wrong." Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether the Hornchurch Council have communicated with his Ministry and told him that the figures are wrong? If he looks up the "Daily Telegraph" he will see that the Chairman of the Housing Committee gave the figure as 200 under construction. What is the number under construction, or are there such arrears of work in the office of the hon. Gentleman that he cannot discover?
In Hornchurch, we are desperately overcrowded. We have 1,500 families on the housing list and we have a Conservative Council, which means that they have practically no hope of being rehoused. The Chairman of the Housing Committee said that some have no housing need. How did he determine that? Because—and this is the most cynical thing I have heard for a long time—they were not overcrowded within the terms of the prewar Act. At this moment any one who likes can come into Hornchurch and build a house if he has the money to pay for it. Anyone who wants to be on the so-called Hornchurch operative list and to have a house must have been a resident in Hornchurch for eight years. There is a wonderful difference of need. Anyone who has money can have the house; anyone who wants to rent a house has to wait for it for eight years.
Hornchurch is particularly interesting, because at one time we had a Labour council. I shall give the figures and show what happened under the two administrations. From April, 1945, to April, 1946, we had a Ratepayer council. It is true that the Ratepayer members who were non-political turned out later as the Conservative candidates in the next election but one. From April, 1946, to April, 1948, we had a Labour Government, and from April, 1948, to the present time we have had Tory control in the Hornchurch urban district. It is important nationally, because Hornchurch is the top


urban district council with the number of houses.
What were the number of council houses completed? In the first year of Ratepayer control, taking from June, 1945, to June, 1946, there were none constructed. Next year, the figure was 58. Then, Labour came in and there were 447, and in the next year, when the houses planned under the Labour Administration were completed, there were 429. When the Tories came in, down came the figures in 1949–50 to 305, and in 1950–51 to 280. In 1951–52, they went went up a bit to 338.
Then came in the Conservative policy. In the year from June, 1951, to June, 1952, there were finished the houses which were started with Conservatives at Whitehall and Conservatives in the local offices in Hornchurch. What was the answer? Eighty council houses to let were built, and 522 private enterprises houses were completed. Was that all due to the absence of sewerage?
Let me give these figures in terms of percentage. In 1948–49, when the houses started under the Labour council were completed, the percentage of council houses to the total was 83 per cent. By 1952–53 it had dropped to 13½ per cent. In 1948–49, private building accounted for a little over 11 per cent. of the total number of houses finished. In 1952–53, it came to account for over 86 per cent. That is the position in a typical Conservative area.
I raise this not only as a Hornchurch problem, but as a problem that is, possibly, occurring all over England. I shall give the Parliamentary Secretary plenty of time to reply, because I want him to tell the Hornchurch Council whether—to take the figures of houses in building—to have 508 houses for sale for private enterprise and 98 for letting is the sort of proportion of which his Ministry approve. Let the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what representations he has made to the Hornchurch Council about their miserable and disgraceful record. How was it that when Labour kept a firm control over them they were always able, even though they were a Conservative council, to find where the drains were, and how was it that once there was Tory control at Whitehall, no drains could be found?
Let the Minister answer those questions from the Despatch Box. That is why I have raised the matter in the very short time that was available to me, not so that I can put forward the figures—they are well enough known in Hornchurch; what we want to hear from the Minister is a condemnation of what is going on at Hornchurch, and he has 10 minutes in which to give it to the House.

10.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): If I can lower the temperature and perhaps add to the information on this subject I should be grateful. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has said that he has taken the first Parliamentary opportunity of raising this subject in the House of Commons and he compares the Ministry's office with that of Guiana by saying that the Ministry in Guiana left work undone. But the hon. and learned Member, with his experience, should know the great controversial value to be attached to understatement. This Government has built more houses for letting and more for sale than did his Government——

Mr. Bing: Will the hon. Gentleman excuse me——

Mr. Marples: No, I have only 10 minutes and the hon. and learned Member has taken 10 minutes and I will make my reply in my own way.
He says that this was the first Parliamentary opportunity to raise this matter in the House but on what is that state-men based? He was kind enough—and I am grateful to him for his courtesy and consideration—to send me a duplicated sheet, a propaganda sheet, written by the hon. and learned Member and dated 26th August, 1953–60 days ago—and signed "Geoffrey Bing."

Mr. Bing: Why not?

Mr. Marples: I quite agree, but if it were so urgent why did he not either send me this in the post and ask questions or come and tell me about it instead of waiting for Parliament to reassemble? I would have dealt with his points then and it would have given a chance to me to go into the matter and to the local authority to reply.
The hon. and learned Member has made accusations against his own local council when they have not had the chance of saying what is their point of view. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they have never had the chance of expressing their opinion.

Mr. Bing: Mr. Bing rose——

Mr. Marples: I did not interrupt the hon. and learned Member and he must curb his impatience and listen for a change, because on the matter of housing he is not quite so fair and tenacious as on other matters. He is always anxious that fair play should be devoted to other causes. I only hope he will give Horn-church Council the same fair play that he asks for other people, especially from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
If the hon. and learned Member had given notice of this I would have been in touch with Hornchurch Council and would have gone fully into it, but in the short notice I have had of the Adjournment debate it has not been possible to do so. Every hon. Member who is a member of a local authority will know that their offices close about six o'clock or half-past five and I had notice of this Adjournment after that time. It has not been possible for Hornchurch Council to say a single word in their defence and I think it is unfair of the hon. and learned Member to his own local authority.
The document that the hon. and learned Member circulated is, quite frankly, a propaganda sheet. It says:
today, practically every house goes to those who can afford to purchase and need has practically ceased to be the test for rehousing.
The Tory council have been in for five years, from 1948–49 to 1952–53, inclusive. During that time they have built 1,432 houses. They have licensed 1,022 for sale, so they have had 310 houses more to let than they have had to sell in the five years they have been in; 40 per cent. more to let than for sale. In the two years before that, from 1946–47 to 1947–48, the Socialist council built 505 houses to let and licensed 556 houses for sale, so the Socialist council have produced 51 houses more for sale than to let while the Conservative council, in five years, built 310 more to let than to sell. Why the hon. and learned Member

should reproach me in the few hours that I have had to go into this matter I do not know.
The second point in this propaganda sheet, prepared not with the objectivity nor subtle skill one normally associates with the hon. and learned Member, is that the Conservative council have reduced the size of the houses to the minimum possible. What does he mean by the minimum possible?

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. That is from his own answer to me in this House before the Recess.

Mr. Marples: The hon. and learned Member says,
reduce to the minimum possible area.
What does he want for a three-bedroom house or a two bed-room house?

Mr. Bing: I am greatly obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He said that this matter was not discussed with the Hornchurch Council. There was a debate with the Hornchurch Council and it was a condition that the hon. Gentleman should be invited but the Conservative Central Office objected to his presence.

Mr. Marples: The hon. and learned Member is being less than fair. What size of house does he want for a two-bedroom house? He has made a suggestion in a broadsheet, which is a propaganda sheet, that the Conservative Council has reduced the size of houses built to the minimum possible. What size does he want them to build for a two-bedroom house?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Bing: I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman. That was the object of this debate. It was an attempt to get an answer from the Government but, like his right hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman seeks information and does not give it.
My complaint about the Hornchurch Council is that they have not built in the last year any three-bedroom houses. They have built only two-bedroom houses. Now they are going on to build one-bedroom houses, which is surely the smallest they can build.

Mr. Marples: I must repeat that the hon. and learned Member has asserted in his propaganda sheet that the council are building to the minimum possible. What


size house does he want a two-bedroom house to be, how many square feet or cubic feet? Will he specify what the council are doing wrong?

Mr. Bing: I will specify what they are doing wrong. They are scarcely building any houses at all. They are building houses of less than 900 square feet super, and the whole standard of housing is much reduced.

Mr. Marples: If it is much reduced what should it be increased to?

Mr. Bing: It is really for the hon. Gentleman to conduct his own speech in his own way, as he promised to do. If he wants to know how houses should be designed in Hornchurch, I suggest that they could have done worse than follow the plans laid down by their Labour predecessors. In those days we built good houses.

Mr. Marples: That is precisely what they have done, because the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was the first to introduce the People's House. All my right hon. Friend did was to take the plans of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, perfect them and make them technically more perfect by reducing the circulation space in a reasonable way and issue instructions to local authorities that they conform to all the Dudley Committee's standards. What does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean by statements like that? He does not know what he means. It is pure propaganda. He has not the slightest idea what the size of a two-bedroom house or three-bedroom should be, and it is no use pretending that he has. To use the vernacular, he "hasn't a clue."
We have built to the designs laid down by the right hon. Member for Bishop

Auckland. I believe that on this occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman is not playing at national politics. My view is that he is playing at local politics. He is trying to get at local loyalities and trying to sway the people in Hornchurch to vote in a certain way. I do not often speak harsh words, being a mild-mannered man and not being so skilful in discussion as the hon. and learned Member, but I think that on this occasion he is doing less than justice to himself. My right hon. Friend the Minister has, I think, done a greater service to housing in this country than any other Minister who has preceded him in that office.
If the hon. and learned Member has any point about Hornchurch which he wishes to raise and will be courteous enough in future to give a little more notice of notes which he is circulating I promise him that I will go into the points which he raises and answer them either in debate or in Questions or by private conversation or letter. My right hon. Friend has laid down that we must try to answer Members' genuine queries as fully as possible, but I make my protest to the hon. and learned Member that in the last hour of the first day of Parliament he should have deemed fit to issue a broadsheet and send that to us as being what he proposed to raise on the Adjournment. I do not think that that is giving the Government a fair chance and is certainly not representing Hornchurch to the best of the hon. and learned Gentleman's ability.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.